
pfenmt of ®mptn. 






UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



0£« /?Mft£fJM. 








i 



BIBLE BAPTISM, 



THE IMMERSES INSTRUCTED, 



VARIOUS SOURCES. 

BY 

J 
JAMES E. I^UIW, A. M.j V. D. M. 

AUTHOR OF THE COLD-WATER-MAN, &c. 



To the law and to the testimony — Isa. 8: 20. 

Make all things according to the pattern — Heb 8: 5. 

Truth is mighty and will prevail — Tertullian. 

He who hates truth shall be the dupe of lies — CowpeR. 

Prove all things 5 hold fast that which is good— 1 Thes. 5 : 21. 




DETROIT: 

BENJAMIN WOOD, PUBLISHER. 
GEIGER & CHRISTIAN, PRINTERS. 

1844. 



Entered according to Aet of Congress in the year one thousand eight hundred and 
forty-four, by Benjamin Wood and James E. Quaw, in the Clerk's Office of 
the District Court of the United States for the District of Michigan. 



£- O- A '*J 



'J 



PROEM. 



Many ef the materials for the following work were collected while (he Author wai 
traveling in primitive apostolic style in different parts of the great American valley* 
In these his ministerial journeyings, he usually preached six or eight times a week; 
while he often traveled on f ,ot without purse or scrip or two coats, sometimes with 
scarcely one, often for days without bread, and occasionally without water. But the 
mighty G..d of Jacob was always with him. 

This book was written in a western h-g-cabin; in a room which, at one and the same 
time, answered for a study, a parlor, a sifting-roem a diuing-haH, bed-room, and kitch- 
en. The hours which, for six or eighi months, the Author could spare from the dis- 
charge of the duties of a New Testament Bi-hop, he has, in this rather romantic study, 
devoted ■ o this work. The reader must determine whether they have or have not bees 
profitably employed. That the work required labor will be manifest to tho>e who may 
read it with .are. Indeed, this is evident from the single fact, that to complete it on 
the plan which the .Author adopted, more or less words from twelve foreign languages, 
ancient.and modern, have been introduced into the work. 

The learned reader will perceive that for tne sake of those who are not acquainted 
with any language except. English, the Author has invariably so placed the words taken 
from foreign sources, that the mere English reader may omit them entirely without in- 
juring, in the least, the sense of the passages where they are used. He will also per- 
ceive th.it in consequence of this* the style, in such passages, is not quite so smooth as 
it would otherwise have been, especially for such as read and understand both the for- 
eign and English words. But such persons will be the last to find fault on this a« count. 

This work was written to remove the rubbish that learning and ignorance and learned 
ignorance have thrown round a plain Scriptural truth and duty ; and then to place these 
clearly before the reader's mind, with the evidence in their favor. It has not lees 
written in answer to any book, or in opposition to any class of men. The subject of 
baptism has been examined with some degree of care. What men have said in favor of 
immersion being the only mode of baptism, has been brought to the test of truth and ex- 
amined Their assertions, as a substitute for Scriptural evidence, often, when examined, 
appear ridiculous. But when this is the case, the fault is not in the truth, or in those 
who present it to the mind ; but in those who, by mistake or otherwise, substitute un- 
supported assertions for Divine Revelation. 

Many men have written well on different parts of the subject of baptism. The names 
of several of those are mentioned in this work. Not a few of them are an honor to the 
age and country to which they belong. The writer of this, honors and respects them, 
He does not wish to derogate from their usefulness or well-earned and justly-deserved 
fame. From the writings of some of them he has, with pleasure, made quotations. 
These, it is believed, are all acknowledged in the places where they are made. But 
while lie cheerfully does all this, he humbly hopes the arrangement of" the arguments in 
this work, together with the original matter introduced, will render it acceptable to aS 
•who love Goo's truth ; notwithstanding the occasional repetition of an idea, in order to 
carry out the plan. 

If this work is noticed publicly, by the friends or enemies of Divine truth, pot with 
sneers, assertions or questions, but by facts and arguments which point out any error in 
the proof presented, o<- in the positions taken, the Author will be much obliged to those 
who do so. This will enable him to correct any mistakes or errors which it may con- 
tain. Those who " gnaw at the cover," quibble at trifles, or misrepresent what it con- 
tains, will only show what they would do it they could. That no man ever has or ever 
can prove immersion to be the only Scriptural mode of baptism, is certain ; because the 
word of God makes no such declaration in any form of expression. But net withstand- 



ing this, when errors are discovered in the following work, the Author will cheerfully 
correct them. 

This book, like most others, will, no doubt, fall into the hands of different kinds of 
readers. Some of these will be prejudiced, and therefore will not judge correctly. Some 
will be cynical. These can discover faults whether the book does or does not contain 
any. But such perstms can neither discover nor correct real errors or mistakes. Those 
who are very ignorant will of course be very severe in their censures. The jealous will 
judge maliciously. The envious will judge with a jaundiced eye and an envenomed 
heart. Some who hate God's truth on this subject, will rage like the sea in a storm •, 
while others among them will scatter their silent venom like the poison tiee of fabulous 
notoriety. But such persons as love Divine truth, wherever they discover it, will ex- 
amine candidly, judge impartially, and discover and correct errors with discretion; while 
they will perceive and acknowledge the force of evidence where it exists. 

The whole subject of baptism has here been investigated. But particular attention 
has been paid to its mode and subjects. In the investigation, it has been shown that 
there is no Scriptural evidence to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
Hence, to assert that it is so, is to utter a positive untruth. It has also been proved 
that no such notion existed for more than 1500 years after the birth of Christ. More- 
over, it has been shown that sprinkling is a mode of baptism, expressly and repeatedly 
taught in the word of God ; and that infants are definitely recognized as proper persons 
to receive this ordinance. 

The Author has divided this work into Books, Parts, Chapters and Sections. He has 
attempted to have, in each Section, a complete argument on the subject mentioned in 
the Chapter ; in each Chapter, a class of arguments relating to the subject of the Part ; 
in each Part, a number of classes of arguments, each relating to that of which the Book 
treats; and each Book contains a leading branch of the subject of baptism. This is the 
plan. The reader will determine for himself how far it has been successfully executed. 

That the Lord may accompany this work with the enlightening, regenerating, con- 
verting and sanctifying influences of His Spirit, is the sincere praver of 

THE AUTHOR. 
Redford, (Mich.,) June 30th, 1844, 



CONTENTS. 



Baptism with water, - 

The duration of Baptism, - 

Baptism unto Moses,- 

Divers Baptisms, ----- 

John's Baptism, - 

Baptism administered to Christ, 

Baptism administered by Him and by the 
apostles before His resurrection, 

Christian Baptism, - 

Doctrine of Baptisms ; one Baptism; Bap- 
tism for the dead, - 

Baptism without water, 

Baptism with the Holy Ghost, 

Baptism with fire, - 

Baptism with sufferings, - 

Baptism without Divine authority, 

Modes of Baptism mentioned, 

The point stated. - 

No Scriptural command for immersion, - 
No example of immersion, 
No inference in favor of immersion, 
No allusion to immersion, 
Immersion not the only mode of Baptism, 
Immersion improbable, - 

Immersion impossible, - 

Assertions and questions, - 

Lexicons and dictionaries on immersion, 
Writers relating to immersion, 
Denominations relating to immersion, 
Several matters touching immersion, - 



OOK. 


Part. 


Chap. 


1. 


I. 


1. 


I. 


I. 


2. 


I. 


If. 


1. 


I. 


II. 


2. 


I. 


III. 


1. 


I. 


III. 


2. 


I. 


III. 


3. 


I. 


IV. 


1. 


I. 


IV. 


2. 


I. 


V. 


— 


I. 


V. 


1. 


I. 


V. 


2. 


I. 


V. 


3. 


I. 


VI. 


1,2. 


I. 


VII. 


1. 


I. 


VII. 


2. 


II. 


I. 


1. 


II. 


1. 


2. 


II. 


I. 


3. 


II. 


I. 


4. 


II. 


I. 


5. 


II. 


I. 


6. 


11. 


I. 


7. 


II. 


I. 


8. 


n. 


II. 


1. 


ii. 


II. 


2. 


ii. 


II. 


3. 


ii. 


II. 


4. 



CONTEXTS. 



Immersers turn aside from Scripture, 
They mistake the point, 
They mistake assertion for proof, 
When immersion did not originate, 
When and where it did originate, - 
Evils of immersion, - 

General view of Immersion. 

Sprinkling, Scriptural Baptism, 
Scriptural examples of sprinkling, 
Lexicons and dictionaries on sprinkling, 
Other writers on sprinkling, 
Denominations on sprinkling, 
General view of Sprinkling. 

The church defined, 

Invisible church includes spiritual Baptism, IV, 

Water Baptism included in visible church 
organization, - 

" Not things, but persons are to be Baptized, 

What in the subject is essential to Baptism, IV 

Adults proper subjects of Baptism, 

Infants proper subjects of Baptism, 

Church "members to be Baptized, 

Scriptural evidence in favor of infant Bap- 
tism, - 

Scriptural examples of infant Baptism, 

Early christians on infant Baptism, 

Modern christian writers on infant Bap- 
tism, .-...- 

Denominations on infant Baptism, 

What infants to be Baptized, 

Advantages of infant Baptism, 

Evils of neglecting infant Baptism, 

Evils of rejecting infant Baptism, 
General view of infant Baptism. 
Conclusion. 



Book 


Tart, 


Chap. 


II. 


III. 


1. 


II. 


in. 


2. 


J I. 


III. 


3, 


II. 


IV. 


1. 


II. 


IV. 


2. 


11. 


IV. 


3. 


III. 


I. 


I. 


III. 


I. 


o 


III. 


II. 


1. 


III. 


II. 


2. 


HI. 


II. 


3. 


IV. 


I. 


1. 


IV. 


I. 


2. 


IV. 


I. 


3. 


IV. 


II. 


1. 


IV. 


II. 


2. 


IV. 


JI. 


3. 


IV. 


11. 


4. 


IV. 


III. 


1. 


IV. 


III. 


2. 


IV. 


III. 


3. 


IV. 


IV. 


1. 


IV. 


IV. 


2. 


JV. 


IV. 


3. 


IV. 


V. 


1. 


IV. 


V. 


2. 


IV. 


V. 


3. 


IV. 


V. 


4. 



BIBLE BAPTISM. 



That the Bible is the only rule in all religious duties, is a 
grand mark of distinction between christians and others. 
To admit that any deviation from this rule, is a part of Chris- 
tianity, is to declare virtually, that the Bible is defective, and 
that men are wiser than God. If the Bible is a perfect rule, 
it cannot be made better by any additions or omissions which 
men may suggest. Deviations from its perfect requirements, 
cannot be holy ; they must be sinful. Since the wisdom of 
God is revealed in his word; none can forsake this without 
admitting practically, that they prefer the wisdom of men to 
that of God. Those who take the Bible for their only rule 
in all religious duties, have perfect wisdom to direct them. 
Its teaching is plain, positive and uncompromising. It does 
not teach opposite and contradictory sentiments. In its de- 
clarations, we have more than the opinions of men ; we 
have the authority of God. Those who take the scriptures 
of truth for their only rule in all religious duties, 

1. Ascertain the exact meaning of its words. 

2. They take the words in their literal signification, un- 
less the context or parallel passages require them to be used 
figuratively. 

3. In figurative expressions, they deviate as little as pos- 
sible from the literal signification of the words. 

4. What the scriptures teach, they take for positive proof 
on all religious subjects. 

5. What the scriptures require, and that only, they re- 
ceive and practise as parts of their religion. 

6. What the scriptures forbid, they do not practise for any 
purpose ; certainly not as a part of their religion. 

On the subject of baptism, therefore, the scriptures only 
can be recognized as authority to which all are bound to 
submit. 



RECOMMENDATION. 

Bible Baptism is, by many competent judges, said to be 
the most valuable work written on the subject of which it 
treats. Moreover, it is the only one in print which discus- 
ses the subject of baptism in all its various parts. 

Ministers and laymen in the Associate, the Associate Re- 
formed, the Reformed Presbyterian, the Dutch Reformed 
and Presbyterian churches, have expressed the above senti- 
ment in relation to this work. They also affirm that it 
ought to be in the hands of every man, woman and child 
who can read the English language. But the publisher says; 
read the book. It will recommend itself. 

DEDICATION. 

To all who in reality take the word of God for their only 
rule in all religious duties, this work is affectionately dedi- 
cated by their servant in the gospel of Christ, 

The Author. 



BIBLE BAPTISM. 



BOOK FIRST— BAPTISM. 

PART FIRST BAPTISM WITH WATER. 

CHAPTER I. 

BAPTISM WITH WATER TAUGHT IN THE WORD OF GOD. 

1. The Scriptures definitely teach that baptism with wa- 
ter was required by Divine authority. John the Baptist re- 
peatedly declares, in the most positive language, that he bap- 
tized " with water. " His language on this subject is ; "I 
baptize with water;' 7 I am "come baptizing with water ;" 
He — "sent me to baptize with water f£*. "I indeed baptize 
you with water."f That John, by Divine authority, used 
water in baptism, is as definitely taught by the language just 
quoted, as it is possible for words to teach any fact whatever. 
To deny therefore, that John baptized " with water, ;; can- 
not be less than a positive denial of the plain declarations of 
God's word. 

2. The disciples of Christ baptized iMth water after His 
resurrection. The language of Peter recorded by Divine 
inspiration, teaches this truth. It is this ; " Can any man 
forbid water that" Cornelius and his friends " should not be 
baptized ?" J The language of the Eunuch teaches the same 
fact • " See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be bap- 
tized ?"§ Both these statements, in relation to the use of 
water in baptism, were made some time after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ ; and in each of them the fact that the disci- 
ples used water in baptism, is most clearly taught. 

3. The commission to baptize shoios that baptism with wa- 
ter icas intended. In this Christ says ; " Go ye, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them."|| Here the disciples are re- 
quired to administer baptism. They did baptize as they are 

*JoIm 1: 26. 31. 33. fMat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke, 3: 16. {Acts 10: 47. §Acts 8: 36. 
||Mat.28:19. 



10 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. I, P. I. 

here required to do. They administered the very ordinance 
included in this command. But as they did not, and could 
not baptize with the Holy Ghost, that being the work of a 
Divine person,* and as they did baptize as the commission 
directed; they must therefore have baptized with water. 
When the Apostles administered the baptism mentioned in 
their commission, it is manifest that they then baptized not 
with the Holy Spirit, but with water. 

4. Persons were commanded by the Apostles to b* bapti- 
zed with water. Peter "commanded" Cornelius and his 
friends after "the Holy Ghost fell on them," " to be bapti- 
zed'"! by some person or persons authorized to administer 
the ordinance of baptism. As these persons had already 
been renewed by the power of the Spirit, and made new 
creatures, when Peter commanded them to be baptized, the 
command must have required them to be baptized with water. 
When Peter, with the eleven, on "the day of Pentecost," 
preached to the "men of Judea," and to all those who dwelt 
"at Jerusalem," and commanded them to "Repent and be 
baptized," and declared that they should " receive the gift of 
the Holy Ghost, "f it is manifest that the baptism here men- 
tioned is distinct from repentance, and from "the gift of the 
Holy Ghost." This baptism therefore must have been with 
water, not with the Spirit ; because these are mentioned as 
really different from each other. Besides, Peter, with the 
eleven, would not command the Holy Ghost to baptize per- 
sons ; and if the command were given to men and executed 
by them, then the baptism must have been with water, not 
with the Holy Ghost ; for baptism with the Holy Ghost, is 
the work of a Divine person, not of men. 



CHAPTER II. 

BAPTISM WITH WATER TO CONTINUE TILL THE END OF TIME. 

1. Th'^re is no evidence that, baptism with water is to be 
discontinued. If the whole scriptures should be searched, 
not a single passage could be found that would teach either 
directly or indirectly, that baptism with water was to cease 
in any age of the New Testament church. But, since it 

*Mut. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16, Acts 1: 5. tActs 10: 44. 48. JActs 2: 1. 14. 38. 



Ch. 2, § l.J BAPTISM WITH WATER. 11 

was administered by Divine authority (a) ; and since God 
has not, in any passage of scripture, directed men to discon- 
tinue the practice of baptizing with water, and since there is 
nothing in baptism itself to limit its duration, therefore to 
lay aside that ordinance, is a practical repeal, by men, of a 
Divine law. No man can do this without great guilt in 
the sight of God. Baptism with water must therefore be 
continued in the church of God, till he repeals his own law 
on this subject. 

2. The commission to baptize teaches thai baptism with 
water is to continue till the end of time. The commission to 
baptize includes the promise ; " Lo, I am with you alway, 
even unto the end of the world."* In this promise, Christ 
engages to be with those whom he commissions to teach and 
baptize. The duration of the commission is also mentioned. 
It is to be in force till "the end of the world." But since 
the whole commission is to be in force till the end of time ; 
therefore that part of it which requires the Apostles and their 
successors in office to be baptized with water (b), must re- 
main as long in force. As the same commission requires 
Christ's ministering servants to teach and baptize with wa- 
ter ; the duty to teach and baptize must continue together or 
cease at the same period. But teaching is to continue till the 
end of time; and therefore baptism with water, required in 
the same commission which requires ministers to teach, 
must also continue till the end of time. 

3. Inspired men teach that baptism with water is to con- 
tinue till the end of time. These baptized with water af- 
ter the resurrection of Christ (c). This shows that they 
understood what their commission required them to do. 
They thus taught that they knew that baptism with water 
was an ordinance in the church, which did not cease to be 
binding at the death or resurrection of Christ. Nor, as in- 
spired men, could they be mistaken in this matter. Thus 
baptism with water was, by the example of inspired men, 
handed down to the church ; and by the church it has been 
practiced ever since the New Testament dispensation of it 
commenced, till the present day. Those who do and will 

(o) Ch. 1, § 1-4. *Mat. 28 : 20. (b) Ch. 1, §3. (c) Ch. 1, § 2. 



12 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. II. 

hereafter follow the same inspired instructions and examples, 
will bantize with water " even unto the end of the world. 7 ' 

4. Baptism with water as a Divine institution, is to con- 
tinue in the church till the end of time. Our Saviour in his 
mediatorial character instituted the ordinance of christian 
baptism. He claims this character in the expression ; "All 
power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."* In his 
human nature merely, he could not have received all this 
" power ;" in his Divine nature merely he possessed it al- 
ready ; but in his human and Divine natures united in one 
person, he could and did receive "all power." In this char- 
acter he gives the commission to teach and baptize. He 
says ; "All power is given unto me — Go ye therefore and 
teach all nations, baptizing them."! Because he possessed 
all power, he directed them to teach and baptize. This 
commission therefore is of Divine authority. All it contains 
is therefore Divinely instituted. It requires baptism with 
water to continue till the end of time (a); and therefore 
whenever and wherever this ordinance is administered "ac- 
cording to Christ's appointment" and by his authority, the 
administration is in obedience to a Divine command ; and 
therefore the ordinance thus administered is always a Divine 
institution. 

PART SECOND. 
BAPTISM administered by divine authority before the 

BIRTH OF CHRIST. 

CHAPTER I. 

BAPTISM UNTO MOSES. 

1. The Israelites were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea." This baptism was administered about 1491 
years before the birth of Christ. About 50 years after his 
birth, we are informed that the Jews were all " under the 
cloud and all passed through the sea;" and that they "were 
all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea."! If 
God had not told us in his word, that the Israelites were bap- 
tized "in the cloud and in the sea," we would not have 
even conjectured that the cloud passing over them and pour- 

*Mat.28: 18. fMat. 28: 18. 19. (o) § 2. +1 Cor. 10: 1. 2. 



Ch. 1, § 2, 3, 4.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 13 

ing "out water' 7 * upon them, was baptism; or that they, 
passing through the sea on _ u dry ground, 77 were baptized. 
But this was baptism ; and this account in Exodusf is the 
most ancient record existing that mentions baptism. In this 
baptism, no human hand administered the ordinance. But 
God himself baptized the nation of Israel; while they re- 
ceived the ordinance of baptism which the Divine hand ad- 
ministered. The sea was his baptismal font which contain- 
ed the element of water to be used in baptizing his people. 
He used the cloud, as it passed from their front to their rear, 
in baptizing them, before they entered the opening from 
which the sea " fled 77 ! before omnipotent power. After they 
entered upon " the dry land in the midst of the sea, 77 § the 
waters of the deep did not close in upon them. The Al- 
mighty's hand restrained them from doing this; while he 
baptized them with the waters of the sea. 

2. This baptism was typical. We are informed that a 
number of things among which this baptism "unto Moses," 
is mentioned, " were our examples ;" and " happened unto 
them for ensamples. 77 j| These things therefore were in- 
tended to symbolize certain occurrences in New Testa- 
ment times. Baptism unto Moses is especially mentioned 
as one of these. It was therefore a typical or symbolical 
baptism. It may have typified christian baptism. 

3. This baptism was expressive of the union of the Israel- 
ites to Moses as their leader. They were "baptized unto" 
(Greek sis t°i in or into) him.fi" This expression indi- 
cates, not that they were all entirely covered over in the 
body of Moses ; but that they were thus united to him as 
their leader and law-giver, under God their king. By re- 
ceiving this baptism, they publicly recognised this as their 
relation to Moses. God, by administering this baptism to 
them, gave his solemn sanction to this their union. There- 
fore this relation to Moses as their leader was, not only ex- 
pressed by this baptism, but it also in this ordinance receiv- 
ed the Divine approbation. 

4. In this baptism, their obedience to Moses was indicated. 
Obedience to the person or being, in, unto, to or into whom 
or in whose name, the ordinance is administered, is always 

*Ps. 77: 17. tEx. 14: 19-22. JPs. 114: 3. §Ex. 14: 29. IU Cor. 10: 6. 11. tfl 
Cor. 10: 2 in Greek. 



14 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. I, P. II. 

recognized as due from the baptized. He who administers 
baptism or requires others to da so, demands obedience from 
those to whom it is administered. This obedience is to be 
rendered to him in whose name or unto whom they are 
baptized. When God requires this obedience ; the baptized 
are always bound to render it ; because the requirement is 
then always just ; and obedience therefore always proper. 
Hence, when the Israelites were baptized to, in, unto or into 
Moses ; they were under baptismal obligations to render him 
personal and prompt obedience. 



CHAPTER II. 

DIVERS BAPTISMS. 

1. These baptisms were Old Testament washings. The 

'♦gifts and sacrifices" in Old Testament times, it is said, 
" stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings" 
((3 a n r i s f* o i s) or baptisms, " and carnal ordinances.''"* 
In the Greek, these "divers washings" are expressly called 
baptisms. They are also mentioned as belonging exclusive- 
ly to the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant, and 
including all its ceremonial washings.f Of these washings 
or baptisms, three specimens are definitely named. t Two 
of these are with blood and one with water. These are all 
mentioned as ceremonial purifications. § With one or both 
these fluids, the "unclean," — "the book and all the peo- 
ple," — " the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry,"|| 
were ceremonially purified. The various ceremonial wash- 
ings therefore belonging to the Old Testament dispensation 
of the covenant, are, by the Holy Spirit, called "Divers 
baptisms."^] In this expression they are all included. 

2. These 4< Divers baptisjns** ivere numerous. If any cer- 
emonial washings existed among the Israelites before the 
days of Moses, they are not definitely mentioned in the word 
of God; nor are any kind of washings before this, called 
baptisms. But from the time the passover was instituted, 
1491 years before Christ, till he suffered on the cross ; these 

■*Heb. 9: 9. 10 in Greek. fSee Heb. 9: 1-23. tfleb. 9: 13. 19.21. $Heb. 9: 13. 22. 
1|Heb.9: 13. 19. 21, Ex. 21: 6. 8, Lev. 14: i-7 and 16: 15. 10. 19, Num. 19: 2-5. 
TSee Heb. St: 10 in Greek. 



Ch. 1, § 1.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 15 

washings which the Holy Ghost calls " baptisms"* were so 
numerous that under "the law almost all things, 7 ' were 
"purged with blood,"f and some with water. To produce 
ceremonial purification, blood was applied to " the altar," — 
to "the people,' 7 — to "the tabernacle, 7 ' — to "the vessels of 
the ministry ;"| and for the same purpose it was frequently 
applied to other things. Water also was used in cleansing 
the "leper, 7 ' — the Israelites 7 " clothes, 77 — "Aaron and his 
sons, 77 — the other " Levites,"§ and in several other instan- 
ces. It is manifest therefore that these " divers washings 77 
or baptisms among the Israelites, were very numerous. 

3. Certain vessels under special circumstances were to he 
cleansed by these washings or baptisms. If " the pot' 7 in 
which the "sin-offering" was "sodden," was made of brass, 
it was to be thus ceremonially purified with "water. 77 Ves- 
sels for ordinary use, into which any " unclean" reptile 
might fall, or those " of wood' 7 touched by a person who had 
an "issue, 77 were also to be cleansed ceremonially with 
"water. "|| For these, and the various other ceremonial 
washings or baptisms mentioned with Divine approbation in 
the Old Testament, the Israelites had the positive command 
of God. It ought also to be continually borne in mind that 
all these washings are, by the Holy Spirit, denominated 
baptisms (a). 



PART THIRD. 

baptism administered by divine authority during 
Christ's ministry on earth. 

CHAPTER I. 

JOHN 7 S BAPTISM. 

1. John the Baptist was a truly great man. Before he 
was born, the angel who foretold his birth, declared of him ; 
il He shall be great in the sight of the Lord."^ That he was 
all that " Gabriel" said he would be, will be manifest to any 
person who will examine what God, in His word, says of 
him. John was, (1.) by birth a Jewish Priest. lie was the 

*See Heb. 9: 10 in Greek. fHeb. 9: 22. {Ex. 24: G. 8, Heb. 9: 21. $Lcv. 1-1: P, Ex. 
19: 10, and 40: 12, Num. S: 6. 7 J|Lev. G: 25. 22. and 11: 29. G2. and 15: 12. (a) § 1. 
ULuke h 15. 



16 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

son of Zacharias, a priest "of the course of Abia."* And 
because he was a priest's son, he was by the Levitical law, 
"consecrated to minister' 7 to God " in the priest's office. "t 
(2.) He was Ellas or Elijah (a), not in person, but in spirit 
and in power. When the Jews said to him ; " Art thou Ell- 
as ?'-' meaning Elias or Elijah in person ; " he saith, I am 
not." The angel speaking of him before his birth, said ; 
" He shall go before" the Lord " in the spirit and power of 
Elias." Our Saviour says of John the Baptist; "This is 
Elias which was for to come ;" that is, this is he who was 
" to come" in the spirit and power of Elias, according to the 
prediction of the prophet.! (3.) He was the harbinger or 
forerunner of Christ. God says ; " Behold, I send my mes- 
senger, and he shall prepare the way before me." This is, 
by our Saviour, applied to John as being " written" of him. 
He was also, in his very infancy, addressed in this language; 
"And thou, child — shalt go before the face of the Lord, to 
prepare his way."§ (4.) " He was a burning and a shining 
light." He is so called by his Great Master ; because, both 
by precept and example, he clearly reflected the bright 
beams of "the Sun of righteousness." || (5.) He was a 
" voice."*i\ As such he directed the attention of the Jews to 
himself, and from himself to the Lord Jesus Christ. (6.) 
He was " a prophet," — " the prophet of the Highest." In 
this character, he predicted that Christ would very soon ap- 
pear in public as the Messiah so often foretold by other pro- 
phets.** (7.) He was " more than a prophet. 7 '' He was a 
prophet; a priest; a light; a voice; the forerunner of 
Christ, &c. To be all this, is to be "much more than a pro- 
phet, "ft (8.) He was inferior to none who lived before him. 
On this point Jesus Christ declares ; "Among them that are 
born of women, there hath not risen a greater than John the 
Baptist. "|| (9.) He was a martyr. For his faithfulness in 
reproving Herod for his sins, he was first "cast into pri- 
son" and then "beheaded."§5> He was the last, in all pro- 
bability, who suffered death for his religion, before the Great 

*Luke 1: 5. 62. 63. and 3: 2. tEx. 28: 41. and 29: 1-37, Num. 3: 3, Deut. 18. 5. 
(a) The Hebrew name Elijah, when expressed in Greek, is Elias. tJohnl: 21, Luke 
1:17.76, Mat. 11: 14. and 17: 10. 12. 13, Mai. 4: 5. §Mal. 3:1, Mat. 11: 10. ||John 
5: 35, Mai. 4: 2. Tflsa. 40: 3, Luke 3: 4, John 1. 23. **Mat. 11: 7. 9. and 21i 26, 
Luke 1: 76, See 3< hn 1: 26-33. ttMat. 11: 9, Luke 7: 26. ttMat. 11: 11, Luke 7; 28, 
§§Mat. 11: 2 and 14; 3-12, Mark 6: 14-29, Luke 3: 19, 20. 



Ch. 1, § 2.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 17 

Sacrifice was offered on the cross. (10.) The "least in the 
kingdom of Heaven is greater than he.."* John was, in no 
degree, inferior to any prophet, priest or king who lived be* 
fore him. Nevertheless, he who breaks one of the least of 
God's " commandments," and teaches " men" to do "so" — • 
and is therefore properly "called the least in the kingdom 
of Heaven, "t is greater in point of privileges than he was, 
It appears therefore that a New Testament christian, whose 
spiritual knowledge and graces are inferior to those of many 
around him, enjoys, notwithstanding, greater privileges than 
even John the Baptist did. Certainly then, the most " hum- 
ble" and obedient, f who are " the greatest in the kingdom 
of Heaven,"i: smce they are exempt from the ceremonial 
law, and enjoy the written revelation contained in the New 
Testament, as well as that of the Old, together with an all- 
sufficient atoning sacrifice already made, must enjoy greater 
privileges than John. 

2. John the Baptist lived and died under the Old Testa* 
ment dispensation of the covenant. This is undeniably cer- 
tain from a number of facts stated in the word of God. (1.) 
Old Testament ordinances continued in force till the death 
of Christ. These were circumcision and the passover. Be* 
ing ordinances peculiar to the Old Testament, they could re- 
main in force only during that dispensation. Of the last 
passover, Christ, just before his crucifixion, says to his dis* 
ciples ; " With desire I have desired to eat this passover with 
you before I suffer : for I say unto you, I will not any more 
eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God :" — 
and " I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the king- 
dom of God shall come."§ This language clearly indicates 
that " the kingdom of God" here mentioned, had not come, 
or commenced, when this was spoken ; nor that the typical 
passover of the Old Testament was at that time fulfilled in 
u Christ our passover," who was not then yet sacrificed for 
us." 1 1 But in the death of Christ, its whole design was com-, 
pleted. It was then swallowed up in the great Antitype. 
All the typical prophecies included in the passover, were 
completely fulfilled at the death of Christ, our paschal " Lamb 
slain," in the purpose of God, " from the foundation of the 

*Mat. 11: 11, Luke 7: 23. fMat. 5: 19. {Mat. 18; 4. §Luke 22: 15. 16. 18. 1)1 Cor . 
5:7. 

2 



18 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. Ill, 

world."* As Christ eat the passover which was an Old 
Testament ordinance, a very short time before he suffered 
on the cross ; so whatever took place before his deaih must 
have been under that dispensation, of which the passover was 
an ordinance or a part. John the Baptist was " beheaded"! 
before Christ eat the last passover ; therefore he lived and 
died under the Old Testament dispensation, while the pas- 
chal ordinance was legally in force. (2.) John, in his 
preaching, taught definitely that the New Testament dispen- 
sation of the covenant had not then commenced. That which 
is " at hand," is near ; within reach ; but is not yet in posses- 
sion. " The kingdom of Heaven 7 ' or " of God," may de- 
note the Old Testament church ; the New Testament church; 
the whole church on earth in every age ; or the kingdom of 
glory. Which it denotes must be determined by the connec- 
tion in which the expression is used. When John began to 
preach, he declared ; " The kingdom of Heaven is at hand."f 
Every kingdom has a king, together with subjects and ter- 
ritory to be governed. Over " the kingdom of God" or " of 
Heaven," God is king. His professed friends are his sub- 
jects. Wherever they reside, in any part of the universe, 
is the region governed by him as his special kingdom. As 
in the days of John, the Old Testament church had long ex- 
isted, that could not then be said to be " at hand," or near ; 
nor could this expression be used of the kingdom of glory ; 
because that was " at hand," or near, just before his death, 
to every saint who had entered it, in any preceding age. It 
is perfectly evident then from the words " at hand," used in 
relation to " the kingdom" mentioned by John, that the New 
Testament dispensation of the covenant was intended. TJiat 
and that only, could be " at hand," as " the kingdom of Hea- 
ven," when John began to preach. (3 <y ) Jesus Christ 
preached the same truth soon after his baptism. When he 
began to preach, he said ; " the kingdom of Heaven is at 
hand."§ It was near, but had not then commenced, as ap- 
pears from the language of Christ. (\.) Christ teaches his 
disciples to preach the same truth. At or near the close of 
John's public ministry, and but a short time before he was 
imprisoned, and not long before his death ; Jesus Christ, in 

*Rev. 13: 8. tMat. 14: 1-14. Mark 6: 14-30. Luke 9: 7-9. {Mat. 3: 2. $Mat. 4: 17. 
Mark 1: 15. 



Ch. 1, § 3, 4.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 19 

sending out the twelve Apostles to preach "to the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel," directs them to say to the Jews ; 
" The kingdom of Heaven is at hand ;" — " the kingdom of 
God is come nigh unto you.' 7 * (5.) He taught the same 
truth to the Jews. Some time after John's death and not 
long before his own crucifixion, Jesus Christ told the Jews 
when they saw certain signs, which were future when he 
spoke ; they might then " know that the kingdom of God" 
was "nigh at hand"f or very near. (6.) Christ himself 
during his lifetime on earth, " was a minister of the circum- 
cision.'^ He, while on earth, confined his public ministra- 
tions almost entirely to the Jews. " He came unto his own" 
in a special manner. In relation to this fact, he says ; " I 
am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. "§ 
The Old Testament dispensation of the covenant with the 
ceremonies of the ceremonial law, terminated with the Re- 
deemer's last expiring breath, when he exclaimed ; "It is 
finished."|| Since therefore "the kingdom of Heaven" or 
New Testament church, was only "at hand" or near, but 
was not commenced, when John began his ministry • when 
Christ began to preach ; about the time John was imprison- 
ed, and was only " nigh at hand" or very near, more than a 
year and a half after John's death and just before the cruci- 
fixion of Christ ; it is absolutely certain that John lived and 
died before the New Testament dispensation of the covenant 
commenced ; and that therefore he belonged to that of the 
Old, which ended as Christ expired on the cross. 

3. John Baptized. This appears, (1.) from his title. He 
is called the Baptist, because he baptized. 51 (2.) He himself 
declares that he baptized. He repeatedly says ; " I baptize 
with water. " ## (3.) John the Evangelist, with other sacred 
writers, teaches that he baptized "in Bethabara" — "in 
Enon," &c.ff (4.) "The baptism of John" is often men- 
tioned in scripture, as a fact universally known and admit- 
ted. || From evidence such as this, none who believe the 
scriptures to' be the word of God, can hesitate to admit that 
John baptized. 

4. John's authority to baptize ivas Divine. That this was 

*Mat. 10: 6.7, Luke 10: 9. 11. -fLuke 21: 31. *Rom. 15: 8. $Mat. 15: 24, John 
1: 11. ||John 19: 30, Col. 2: 14. ffMat. 3-- 1. and 11: 11. 12. **Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1; 
8, Luke 3: 16, John 1: 26. ftJohn 1. 28, and 3: 23. J+See Mat. 21: 25, Mark 11: 30, 
Acts 1: 22. 



20 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

the case, is proved, (1.) from the general evidence given in 
the account of his life and character contained in the holy 
scriptures.* (2.) It is also expressly declared that he was 
"sent from God," — "sent to baptize" — and that "the word 
of God came unto John."t This language shows clearly 
that his commission to baptize was Divine. (3.) Jesus 
Christ informs us that John's authority to baptize, was "from 
Heaven" or Divine. This he does in the question ; "The 
baptism of John, whence was it % from Heaven or of men 1 ?"! 
This interrogatory affirmation is equivalent to a positive de- 
claration that John's baptism was " from Heaven ;" or that 
he baptized by Divine authority. His commission to baptize 
was therefore "from God." 

5. God the Father, as his personal act, commissioned John 
to baptize. This fact John himself teaches. He declares ; 
" He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto 
me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and re- 
maining upon him, the same is he which baptizeth with the 
Holy Ghost. "§ This account which John gives of his com- 
mission, shows clearly that his authority to baptize was not 
derived from the Son or Spirit as the personal act of either ; 
and that therefore, since this his authority was Divine(a), it 
must have been obtained from the Father, as his personal 
act. 

6. John's commission to baptize did not include succession. 
He had no right to transfer to others his authority to bap- 
tize. The commission which includes succession, not only 
permits, but absolutely requires this. In his commission, it 
is stated that John was " sent from God ;" that he was "sent 
to baptize ;" but not the least intimation is given in any por- 
tion of the word of God, that John was required, authorized 
or permitted, to send or commission others to baptize ; or 
that at any time he did or attempted to do so. 

7. John was to " decrease." Speaking of himself, he de- 
clares ; "I must decrease. "|| (1.) He was to decrease in 
influence, as the moon's influence decreases when the sun 
rises. (2.) He was to decrease in usefulness, as the bright 
rays of the sun renders the pale moon-beams of little or no 
value ; or as the harbinger's work is done when his lord 

*See Mat. 3: 1-14, Mark 1: 1-9, Luke 1: 13-20 57-80. and 2: 1-21. tJonn 1: 6. 33, 
Luke 3: 2. t Mat. 21: 25, Mark 11: 30. ^JohnJ:33. (a) § 4. ||John 3: 30. 



Ch. 1, § 8.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 21 

whom he announced, has appeared. (3.) The number of 
his disciples was to decrease. His public ministry was soon 
ended ; and then he could baptize, in person, no more disci- 
ples. He had no authority to empower others to baptize 
(a) ; and therefore the disciples whom he baptized must 
soon pass into the eternal world and leave no others to occu- 
py their place. (&. ) His office of forerunner of Christ was 
to decrease in importance as the Messiah became more and 
more manifest to Israel ; till at last it would entirely cease 
when all its duties were completely discharged ; that is, when 
Christ was fully and clearly pointed out to the Jews. John 
was to decrease. It cannot be, therefore, that every person 
who is baptized increases by one, the number of his follow- 
ers, or " disciples ;" as those whom he baptized are called. 
8. John's commission to baptize was special in its design. 
An important part of this design was to make the Lord Jesus 
Christ " manifest to Israel." He himself declares this in ex- 
press language. He says ; " That he should be made man- 
ifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water."* 
When he began to baptize, he did not know Christ personal- 
ly. He declares on this subject ; "I knew him not;" that 
is, he had no personal knowledge of him, as man, when he 
used this expression. He was to acquire this knowledge by 
immediate revelation, and then communicate it to those who 
came to his baptism. This special knowledge of Christ, he 
received when the Spirit " descended" upon him " in a bodi- 
ly shape like a dove."f He then could, and did point Christ 
out to the Jews as the Messiah of the prophets. He then di- 
rected them to " Behold the Lamb of God."! Another part 
of the design of his commission to baptize, was to require the 
Jews as a body, to repent, and to " bring forth — fruits meet 
for repentance." He was thus " to make ready a people pre- 
pared for the Lord,"§ so that they might thankfully receive 
the "Prince of life," the messenger of mercy sent from above, 
when he openly appeared among them. John therefore 
was commissioned to baptize, in order,/ 1. ) To lead the Jews 
to repentance and holiness of life ; and thus to prepare them 
to receive Christ their Messiah at his public appearance 

(a) § 6. *John 1: 31. 33. fLuke 3; 22. tJohn 1; 29. $Luke 1; 17, Mat. 3: 2. 8, Mark 
1; 2-4, Luke 1; 17, and 3; 8. 



22 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

among them ; (2.) To point him out as the Messiah to such 
as received his baptism(a). 

9. John's baptism was intended for the Jews only. This 
we learn, (1.) by knowing the situation of the places where 
he baptized. He baptized " in Bethabara beyond Jordan;" 
"in Enon ;" at "Jordan;" and "in the wilderness.' 7 * 
These places were all in the land of Palestine, the country 
inhabited by the Jews. (2.) The Jews and they only are 
mentioned as receiving his baptism. "Jerusalem and all 
Judea and all the region round about Jordan"t went out to 
him to be baptized. These were all Jews ; and there is no 
evidence that he baptized or was authorized to baptize a 
single Gentile. That John baptized Jews is certain. There 
is no evidence that he baptized any others. To affirm that 
he did, without authority from the word of God, is a devia- 
tion from the scriptural ru\e(b). But as it must be admit- 
ted that he baptized those for whom his baptism was intend- 
ed, and as he baptized Jews only, therefore his baptism was 
intended for them and for no others. 

10. John's baptism was peculiar to himself. It was ad- 
ministered by him and by no other person. This appears, 
(1.) from the fact that, by his commission, he, and no other 
person, was authorized to baptize^cj. His baptism, without 
Divine authority, would have been mere mockery. Hence 
we are informed that God sent him to baptize; (d) so that 
he was empowered to administer this baptism. But no per- 
son before or after him, had or has Divine authority to ad- 
minister the same baptismal lite that John administered ; 
therefore his baptism was peculiar to himself. (2.) The 
name by which it is called, proves this fact. It is often de- 
nominated "John's baptism" and "the baptism of John f J 
but it is not specified in scripture by any other distinguishing 
appellation. Since therefore it is properly called " John's 
baptism" or " the baptism of John," and is not known in 
the word of God by any other name; his baptism must have 
been peculiar to himself. (3.) His title proves that his bap- 
tism was peculiar to himself. He is entitled " the Baptist. "§ 

(a)On Zech. 9: 6, a Jewish Rabbi says, Ellas will come to distinguish and purify the 
unclean. *John 1: 28, and 3: 23, Mat. 3: 6, Mark 1: 4. fMat. 3. 5 % Mack 1: 5, Luke 
3:7.8. (b) See Rule No. 5. (c)$Q. (d)§ 5. JMat. 21: 25, Mark 11: 30, Luke 7: 
29, Acts 1: 22, and 18: 25, and 19; 3, $Mat. 3:1, and 11; 11. 12, and 14; 2. 8, Mark G; 
14. 24. 25, Luke 9. 19, 



Ch. 1, § 11, 12.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 23 

John, and no other person named in the whole word of God, 
is called the " Baptist. 7 ' Though many others baptized, yet 
no other one received this title. Since therefore he only of 
all that baptized in scripture times, was called " the Bap- 
tist;" therefore his baptism, from the administration of 
which he was entitled ''the Baptist," must have been pecu- 
liar to himself. If it were not so, others who baptized as 
well as John, would also, in the word of God, have been 
called Baptists. Had not the baptism of others been essen- 
tially distinct from that of John, they would have deserved 
and received the same title that John did. (4.) Of those whom 
he baptized he chose some as his immediate followers. These 
are often called " his disciples."* They were called " John's 
disciples ;" because he baptized them, and then received them 
under his immediate care as their instructor. They would 
not have been called " his disciples," any more than the dis- 
ciples of any other man, had not his baptism been peculiar 
to himself. It appears therefore from John's commission, 
it being confined to himself; from the fact that his baptism 
is called by his own name ; from his title ; and from the 
distinctive appellation given to his immediate followers 
whom he baptized ; that his baptism was of a special .kind, 
peculiar to himself. 

11. John did not baptize "in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." f In the administration 
of christian baptism, this form is indispensable. But in 
John's baptism it was not used. This is manifest from the 
fact that some who had been baptized unto " John's bap- 
tism" — " had not so much as heard whether there be any 
Holy Ghost."| If John had baptized in the name of the 
Triune God or used the form prescribed by our Saviour ; 
those whom he baptized, would certainly have heard of the 
" Holy Ghost;" because in that case this name, as well as 
that of the Father and Son, would have been mentioned at 
their baptism. 

12. Persons whom John baptized were re-baptized by Apos- 
tolic authority. When those who had received John's bap- 
tism without hearing of the "Holy Ghost," were instructed 
by Paul, they were baptized in the name of the " Lord Je- 

*Mat. 9: 14, and 11: 2, and 14: 12, Mark 6: 29, John 1: 35, and 3: 25. fMat. 28: 19, 
♦Acts 19: 2. 3. 



24 BtBLE BAPTISM. [b. 1, P. III. 

sus,"* not excluding but deluding the Father and Spirit ; as 
is manifest from the passage here quoted, taken in connec- 
tion with the commission by which Christ authorized his dis- 
ciples to baptize. This commission expressly required them 
to baptize in the name of "the Father" and Spirit as well as 
" of the Son."f None are allowed by the word of God to 
re-baptize those who had received christian baptism ; but 
those whom John baptized were re-baptized, therefore John's 
could not have been that baptism which none are authorized 
to repeat. 

Of the "three thousand" baptized "at Jerusalem 7 ' on "the 
day of Pentecost,"^ it is more than probable that a portion 
had heard John preach and had been baptized by him. It 
would have been scarcely possible to find three thousand 
persons, at Jerusalem, in a promiscuous assembly, in less 
than seven years, perhaps less than four from the time John 
began to preach and baptize, not one of whom had formed a 
portion of "the multitude" composed of "Jerusalem and all 
Judea and all the region round about Jordan, "§ who were 
baptized by John. It is highly probable therefore that not 
a few of those three thousand who were baptized on " the 
day of Pentecost," had before received John's baptism. If 
this was the case, the evidence that John's disciples were re- 
baptized' would be repeated, — but scarcely strengthened ; as 
no language can be more positive and pointed than that al- 
ready quoted on this subject. 

13. Joints baptism was not the seal of the covenant into 
which God entered with his visible church. As he lived and 
died under the Old Testament dispensation of the covenant 
(a), during which circumcision and the passover, not bap- 
tism and the Lord's supper, sealed its promises and confirm- 
ed other blessings ; so his baptism could not have been its 
seal. Circumcision then sealed the covenant, and was the 
mark by which a person's standing in the visible " congre- 
gation ot the Lord, "|| was at that time known. John was 
therefore circumcised, and so was the Lord Jesus Christ who 
was born six months after him.tj His baptism could not 
therefore have been the seal of God's covenant entered into 
with his visible people ; for that seal then was circumcision. 

♦Acts 19: 5. iSee Mat. 28: 19. J Acts 2: 1. 5. $Mat. 3: 5, Mark 1: 5, Luke 3: 3. 7, 
(a)§ 2. ||Num. 27: 17. USee Luke 1: 24. 26. 27. 59, and 2: 21. 



Ch. 1, § 14, 15.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 25 

14. The law and the prophets did not end when John ap- 
peared. (1.) The moral law did not cease to be binding at 
the birth, public appearance, imprisonment or death of John. 
That law is of perpetual obligation as a rule of life ; be- 
cause, "through faith" — "the law" is not made "void," 
but established.* (2.) The ceremonial law continued to be 
binding till, at the death of Christ, it was nailed "to His 
cross ;"f and but just before this, our Saviour in eating the 
passover, observed a part of the ceremonial law. It was 
therefore, when he eat the last passover, yet in force (a), 
(3.) Not a few prophets, besides the Apostles and Evange- 
lists lived after the death of John ; after the death of Christ. 
Of these, "Agabus" and "Barnabas" and "Simeon" and 
"Lucius" and " Manaen" and "Judas" and " Silas,"| may 
be named. The law therefore, when John appeared, did 
not lay aside its binding force ; nor did God then cease to 
send forth men to prophesy in his name. And, although the 
Old Testament scriptures, (often called "the law and the 
prophets,) were, until John" appeared,^ the only Divine reve- 
lation which God had then given to man ; yet, it by no 
means follows that they should at that time, as a matter of 
course, cease to be observed, or that no other prophets should 
appear after those mentioned in the Old Testament. More- 
over, "the law and the prophets were, until John" came 
"in the spirit and power of Elias,"|| continually pointing 
the Jewish nation to him as the harbinger of " the Prince of 
peace. "11 Besides, "All the prophets and the law prophe- 
sied until John,''** of him, as a great prophet. He was to 
be the last prophet under the legal or Old Testament dispen- 
sation ; the "Elijah" who was to appear " before the coming 
of the great and dreadful day of the Lord ;"f f the one who 
was to be the forerunner of the Messiah, and point him out 
as "the Lamb of God' 'J J to guilty Israel. From these re- 
marks, it is evident, that when John appeared, " the law and 
the prophets" did not cease to exist ; did not lay aside their 
binding force; nor were the ceremonies of the ceremonial 
law yet fulfilled in the death of Christ. 

15. The New Testament dispensation did not commence 
during John's ministry. Ceremonies peculiar to Old Testa- 

*Rom. 3: 31. tCol. 2: 14. (a)§ 2. J Acts 11: 27. 28, and 13: 1, and 15: 32. §Lukc 
Id 10. || Luke 1: 17. TTIsa. 9: 6. **Mat. 11: 13. fftfaL 4; o. ft John 1: 29. 



26 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

ment times cannot be properly practiced in the New Testa- 
ment church as religious duties. To do this would confound 
the legal and gospel dispensations of the covenant. It would 
bring christians under "the yoke of " ceremonial "bond- 
age," and would be only to " tempt God,"* not to serve 
Him. John, "on the eighth day" after his birth, received 
circumcision, the Old Testament " seal of the righteousness 
of — faith. "f At the time of his circumcision therefore, the 
Old Testament dispensation yet existed and was in force. 
Six months after John's circumcision, it still continued ; for 
then Christ was circumcised^aj. He had been born in "the 
fulness of time. "J When the time fixed for his birth in the 
Divine purpose and predicted by the prophets, had fully come, 
then he was born ; and on the eighth day was circumcised. 
After John's death, our Saviour eat the passoverf&J, an Old 
Testament ordinance. As therefore circumcision and the 
passover which, as religious ordinances, were peculiar to the 
Old Testament, were in force till after John's death ; the 
New Testament dispensation, the sealing ordinances of 
which are not circumcision and the passover, could not have 
commenced during or before his public ministry. Besides, 
John lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation of 
the covenantfcj and therefore before the New commenced ; 
for none will maintain that a person can live and die under 
the Old Testament dispensation and yet live under the New ; 
for a person cannot live under a dispensation which does not 
commence till after his death. 

When Paul, about nineteen years after the death of Christ, 
" took and circumcised" Timothy, it was " because of the 
Jews,"§ not because circumcision was then a religious duty; 
for then "circumcision" was " nothing ;"|| though formerly 
it had been the external "seal" or " token of the covenant''^ 
entered into between God and his visible people. Nor is it 
intimated that the circumcision of Timothy was intended as 
a religious rite, but merely as an act which, at that time, was 
in itself completely indifferent. It cannot therefore be ad- 
duced as a proof that in New Testament times, circumcision 
may or must be practiced as a religious rite. 

During John's ministry the New Testament dispensation 

*Acts 15: 10, Gal. 5: 1. fLukel: 59, Rom. 4: 11. (a) § 13. (Orf. 4: 4. (b) $ 2, 
(c) $2, par. 1-9. $Ae!s 16: 1. 3. ||1 Cor. 7: 19. ITGen. 17: II, Rom. 4: 11. 



Ch. 1, § 16.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 27 

did not commence ; because (1.) circumcision, as a religious 
duty, was practiced during his life ; (2.) the passover was, 
after his death, observed as an Old Testament ordinance ; 
(3.) he lived and died under the Old Testament dispensation 
of the covenant. 

16. The New Testament dispensation did not commence 
till all the types had been fulfilled in the Antitype. In the 
Old Testament, many types are mentioned. Some of these 
have special reference to the death of Christ for their ful- 
fillment. The whole paschal sacrifice was typical of Christ 
who, as " our passover, 77 was " sacrificed for us 77 on the 
cross.* The fact that "a bone of 77 the pascal lamb was 
not to "be broken, 77 was a typical prophecy, f which was 
fulfilled when a bone of Christ was not broken on the cross. 
These Old Testament types, refering specially to the death 
of Christ, couid not have their complete fulfillment in any 
event before or after his crucifixion. In that event, and in 
that only, could these types meet in the Great Antitype. 
Before this event therefore, the Old Testament dispensation 
of which these types were a part, did not and could not end, 
nor the New commence. 

The expression, "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus 
Christ, the son of God, 77 | does not signify that when John 
appeared, then the gospel first began to be preached ; for 
about nineteen hundred years before this, "the gospel 77 was 
preached " unto Abraham. 77 *^ It was also " preached to the 
Israelites in the wilderness. || Moreover " the gospel of Je- 
sus Christ 77 was preached when, in the first promise, it was 
said, the seed of the woman, the Redeemer of sinners, "shall 
bruise 77 the serpent 7 s "head. 77 ff The gospel therefore in- 
stead of being first preached when John began his public 
ministry, had been preached four thousand years before he 
was born. Nor does the language used in this passage teach, 
that when John appeared, the gospel was first, preached; or 
that it was not preached before ; or that then the Old Tes- 
tament dispensation of the covenant ended ; or that the New 
or Gospel dispensation, then commenced. But the expres- 
sion may denote, (1.) that "the beginning' 7 or first cause 
44 of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, 77 being 

*lCor. 5: 7. fEx. 12: 4fi, Num. 9: 12, Ps. 34: 20, John 19: 36. iMark 1: 1. §Gah 
S: 8. ||IIeb, 3; 8-11, and 4; 2. TTGen. 3} 13, 



28 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

preached in any age, was to be sought in his Divine love 
and mercy revealed by "the prophets;" or, (2.) that its 
"beginning" or commencement was "as it is written in the 
prophets,"* that is, it was just as the prophets had described 
it intheir day ; or, (3.) that John who had not before preach- 
ed as the harbinger of Christ, was now about to begin to 
proclaim "the gospel ;" or, (4.) that "the gospel" of Christ 
had a " beginning" or commencement mentioned by " the 
prophets ;" or, (5.) that the sacred writer was about to be- 
gin his account with that portion "of the gospel" which was 
fulfilled in John's preaching; or, (6.) that what he was 
about to write was to commence at " the beginning" of the 
history of the public ministry " of Jesus Christ, the Son of 
God." This, from the connection, appears to be the im- 
pression which the Holy Spirit intended, by the expression, 
to leave on the mind of the reader. It may also denote that 
the most essential part "of the gospel of Jesus Christ," 
is that portion which treats of him as " the Son of God ;" 
for the original word (a^yj) translated " the beginning," 
may signify the principal or most essential part, as well as 
the commencement of an event. Indeed, the commence- 
ment is, in some respects, the most important part of any 
event. It is certain however, from the passages already 
quoted, that the expression, "the beginning of the gospel of 
Jesus Christ," does not teach that the gospel was not preach- 
ed till after John commenced his public ministry. 

17. John did not sustain the office of a minister of the New 
Testament church. This appears, (1.) From the fact that 
John was beheaded before the office of the New Testament 
ministry was instituted. It was not till after the resurrection 
of our Saviour, that he said to "the eleven disciples" and to 
their successors in the ministerial office ; " Go ye — and 
teach all nations."t John was not one of "the eleven ;" 
nor was he one of their successors ; for he was " beheaded"J 
more than a year and a half before Christ rose from the 
dead. As John died before the office of the christian min- 
istry was instituted ; so he could not have sustained that 
office. (2.) John was an Old Testament priest, and died 
under that dispensation (a); therefore his was not the office 
of a New Testament minister. (3.) John's commission did 

*Mark X: % tMat. 28; 2. 6, 13. 16. 19. {Mat. 14: 10-13. (a) $ 1, 2. 



Ch. 1, § 18.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 29 

not include succession (a); it could not therefore be that of 
a New Testament minister, which does include succession. 
(4.) It was confined to the Jews (b J; and hence it was not a 
New Testament commission which extends to the Gentiles. 
(5.) His baptism was not administered in the name of the 
Trinity; and (6.) The subjects of it were re-baptized (c); 
his commission to baptize could not therefore have been that 
of a minister of the New Testament dispensation of the 
church. It is manifest then that John's office was not that 
of a New Testament minister, by which those sustaining it, 
are authorized to "Go into all the world and preach the gos- 
pel to every creature."* 

18. John's baptism was not the christian sacrament called 
baptism. To the very existence of the ordinance of chris- 
tian baptism, several things are indispensably necessary. 
(1.) He who administers it, must live at least a part of his 
life, during the christian dispensation ; because a man can- 
not administer any ordinance after his death. John died be- 
fore the christian dispensation commenced, and while that of 
the Old Testament continued (d). The baptism therefore 
which he administered could not be the christian sacrament 
of baptism ; because he lived no part of his life during the 
christian dispensation. (2.) Christian baptism was not in- 
stituted till after John's death. Like the office of the chris- 
tian ministry, it was instituted after Christ's resurrection. 
And as John's death preceded that of the Saviour^eJ, it must 
have preceded the institution of the christian ordinance of 
baptism ; because this last did not precede but followed the 
death of Christ. John could not then administer an ordi- 
nance which was not instituted till some time after his death. 
(3.) He did not baptize in the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy G\\osi :, (f). In this name, and in this 
only, can christian baptism be administered;! therefore, 
John's, since it was not administered in this name, could not 
have been christian baptism. (4.) John's baptism was re- 
peated by apostolic authority (g), therefore, John's was not 
christian baptism; for this is not to be repeated. (5.) It 
was not the Son but the Father by whom John was sent to 
baptize (/a) ; his, therefore, was not christian baptism. (6.) 

(a) § 6, P. iv. Ch. 1, $ 5. (b) § 9, P. iv. Ch. 1, § 7. (c) $ 11. 12, P. iv. Ch. 1, 
$ 17. *Mark 16: 15. (d) % 2. (e) $ 2. 13. (f) § 11. |See Mat. 28: 19. (g) § 12. (h) $ 5. 



30 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

John's, instead of being the ordinance of christian baptism, 
had very little in common with that sacrament (a). It is 
perfectly manifest then, that his was not christian baptism. 
Whatever it is supposed to be ; whether it is considered as 
one of the "divers washings'' or baptisms* of the Jews ; 
or as an ordinance peculiar to himself as the harbinger of 
Christ, in the morning-twilight of the gospel or New Testa- 
ment day, just as the darkness of the ancient dispensation 
was beginning to break away ; one thing is certain ; his was 
not the christian sacrament of baptism. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE BAPTISM ADMINISTERED TO JESUS CHRIST. 

1. The standing of Jesus Chrut in the covenant, was re- 
cognized by circumcision, not by baptism. This we may 
learn, (1.) From the fact that circumcision was the "seal 
of the righteous of — faith, "t — the "token of the cove- 
nant,"! when he was " eight days" old.§ He was then 
circumcised. By thus receiving this seal of the covenant, 
he was publicly recognised and registered as a visible mem- 
ber of " The congregation of the Lord," as one of Jehovah's 
professed " people" — " Israel. "|| (2.) The Jews are called 
"His own" people ;^\ because, among other reasons, he was 
a circumcised descendant of Abram. He was therefore in - 
his human nature a member of the Jewish nation. By birth 
he was a Jew.** His standing therefore in the covenant 
made with Abram, must, like that of other Jews, during that 
dispensation, have been recognized by circumcision. (3.) Jesus 
Christ is expressly called "A minister of the circumcision. "ft 
Being circumcised and being a minister of the circumcision, 
both intimate that his standing in the covenant made with 
Abram was recognized by circumcision. (4.) He eat the 
passover several times during his life ; and also just before 
his death. \\ By this, it is clearly taught that the Old Tes- 
tament ordinances remained in full force till his death ; and 
therefore circumcision did not, before that event, cease to be 

(a) $2-17. *Heb. 9: 10 in Greek. fRom. 4: 11. JGen. 17: 11. $Lul;e 2: 21. ||Num. 
27: 17, Ps. 144: 1.5, and 143: 14, La. 63: 8, Mat. 1: 1-16, Luke 3: 23-38. IT John 1: 11. 
**See Rom. 9: 3-5. ftRom. 15: 8. %\See Luke 2: 40-47, John 2: 13. 23, and 5: 1, nnd 
6: 4, and 11: 55. 56, Mat. 26: 2-5. 



Ch. 2, § 2, 3.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 31- 

the seal or " token of the covenant." (5.) His covenant re- 
lation to the visible people of God, was recognized by cir- 
cumcision, on the eighth day after his birth ; and he was not 
baptized till he was '* about thirty years of age." # Hence 
his standing in the visible kingdom of God on earth, must 
have been acknowledged by his circumcision ; unless he re- 
mained, for thirty years, externally on the side of Satan ; 
and none but the most desperately wicked would venture to 
think such a blasphemous thought, much less to clothe it in 
words. 

2. Jesus Christ was baptized by John. This fact is several 
times recorded by the inspired writers. " Jesus 77 came from 
Galilee — " unto John, to be baptized of him ;" and " He was 
baptized ;" — " Jesus — was baptized of John ;" — " Jesus al- 
so" was "baptized."! This language needs no comment. 
It is plain and definite. That John baptized the Lord Jesus 
Christ with water, is here taught in positive language. The 
fact is so undeniable that no one who believes the word of 
God can doubt its truth. 

3. Jesus Christ did not receive John's baptism in the same 
sense that others did. John's was to the Jews, "the baptism 
of repentance for the remission of sins." They were bapti- 
zed "unto repentance," confessed "their sins," and were 
required to " bring forth fruits meet for repentance."| In 
the very act of receiving his baptism, they publicly professed 
all this. Those therefore whom John baptized, (except our 
Saviour,) professed, by receiving his baptism, to repent of 
their sins, confessed them and were to prove the sincerity of 
their repentance in those appropriate " fruits," by bringing 
forth which, they corrected the evils of which they had been 
guilty. Since Jesus Christ was " holy, harmless, undefiled," 
and "separate from sinners ;" and since he "did no sin ;"§ 
he had no sins to repent of and confess, to forsake and cor- 
rect. His baptism therefore could not have been " unto re- 
pentance for the remission of sins," as was that of other Jews. 
He did not then receive John's baptism in the same sense that 
others did. When therefore John baptized Christ, and when 
he baptized others ; the baptism had an essentially different 
signification. 

*Luke 2: 21, and 3: 23. fMat 3: 13-16, Mark 1: 9. JMark 1: 4. 5, Mat. 3: 6. 8, Luke 
3: 3. 8. §lleb. 7: 26, 1 Pet. 2: 22. 



32 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. I, P. III. 

4. Jesus Christ did not receive the ordinance of christian 
baptism. This appears, (1.) from the fact that christian 
baptism was not instituted till after Christ was baptized ; nor 
indeed till some time after the death of John who adminis- 
tered the ordinance of baptism to him (a). His, therefore, 
could not have been christian baptism. (2.) Christ received 
John's baptism. This was not the ordinance of christian bap- 
tism (b). As the baptism which he received was John's, 
his, therefore, was not the ordinance of christian baptism. 
[3.) It is improper to baptize a person in his own name ; be- 
cause the baptized, in the very act of receiving the ordi- 
nance, come under baptismal engagements to render obedi- 
ence to him in whose name the baptism is administered (c). 
For a person to engage to render obedience to himself, and 
enter into a solemn obligation to do so, would be but solemn 
trifling. But if Christ was baptized in his own name, he 
thereby came under solemn baptismal engagements to obey 
himself personally. Of such trifling, Christ was not, could 
not be guilty. He was not therefore, baptized in his own 
name ; and if he was not, then his was not the ordinance 
of christian baptism ; for this must be administered in the 
name of the Son as well as of the Father and Spirit.* But 
it was very consistent with propriety for Christ, in a way 
peculiar to himself (d), to receive John's baptism, which 
was not administered in the name of the Trinity (e). It is 
evident then, that Christ's was not the christian ordinance 
of baptism. (4.) Christian baptism supposes sin in the per- 
son baptized. Where there is no sin, none can be washed 
away ; nor can the sign of the washing away of sin, in such 
a case, have any appropriate signification. As Christ was 
personally and perfectly free from sinful defilement in na- 
ture and in practice, his could not be the ordinance of chris- 
tian baptism ; because this last symbolizes, among other 
things, the washing away of sin by the blood and Spirit of 
Christ (f). As he had no personal sins, he did not suffer 
for himself; "but he was wounded for our transgres- 
sions ;" — " He was delivered for our offences ;" — " He died 
for the ungodly ;"— for " sinners. "t (5.) He did not need 
christian baptism. As Christ was inherently holy, neither 

(a) Ch. 1, $ IS, par. 2. (b) Ch. 1. $ IS. (c) P. ii. Oh. 1, $ 4. *Sce Mat. 28: 19. (d) 
§ 3. (e) Ch. 1, $ 11. (f) See P. iv. Ch. 1, § 9. jlsa. 53: 5, Rom. 1: -J.5, and 5: C. 9. 



Ch. 2, § 5, 6.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 33 

His own sufferings, nor the renewing grace of the Spirit, 
could be necessary to make him so. He did not need these 
in any degree, for his own personal purification ; and there- 
fore he did not need, could not, properly speaking, receive 
their external sign in the ordinance of christian baptism. 
Where the thing signified cannot in any degree exist in the 
nature of things, the external sign must be inappropriate. 
Christ being personally holy, did not need, and could not re- 
ceive, the regenerating, converting, renewing grace of the 
holy Spirit. He could not then with propriety receive chris- 
tian baptism which includes the symbolical representation 
of these. (6.) Christ's ministry on earth was under the Old 
Testament dispensation of the covenant. He "was a min- 
ister of the circumcision ;" He observed the Old Testament 
ordinances of circumcision and the passover ; and with his 
expiring breath, he said ; "It is finished."* All this shows 
conclusively that his ministry on earth was under the Old 
Testament dispensation (a). But christian baptism was not 
an Old Testament ordinance ; the baptism therefore which 
he received during his ministry on earth, could not be the 
New Testament ordinance of baptism. 

5. Jesus Christ was a Priest. (1.) He is often so call- 
ed. He is said to be "a priest," — " a priest for ever," — "a 
high priest," — "a great high priest," — "a priest after the 
order of Melchisedec."t (2.) He is said to have a '-priest- 
hood."! None but a priest can have a priesthood. (3.) 
As a priest, "he offered himself without spot unto God ;" — 
"he was offered to bear the sins of many ;" — "Christ our 
passover is sacrificed for us."§ This language and much 
more similar to it, teaches definitely that the Lord Jesus 
Christ was, and is, and will continue to be, a priest. 

6. Christ was, by his baptism, set apart to his priestly of- 
fice. He was a priest. As such, he, in order to comply 
with the Divine law, must be set apart to his office according 
to its requirements. The moral law did not require water 
to be applied to persons for any purpose ; neither did the 
civil law of the Jews. || No part of the ceremonial law re- 

*Rom. 15: 8, Luke 2: 21, and 22: 15. John 13: 1, and 19: 30. f«;See Ch. 1,§ 2. IPs. 
110: 4, Heb. 3. 1, and 4: 14, and 5: 5. 6. 10, and 6: 20. and 7; 11. 15. 17.20. 21. 26, and 
9: 11, and 10: 21,. +Heb. 7: 24. SHeb. 9: 14. 25. 28, 1 Cor. 5: 7. ||See Ex. 20: 1-17, 
Lev. 17: 1-16, and 19: 1-37, and 20: 1-27. 



34 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

quired the application of water to persons before, at or after, 
they were " thirty years of age"* as a religious ordinance, 
except that which required the priests to be thus set apart to 
their office. These were at first to serve " from thirty years 
old — until fifty years old." In after ages, they were requi- 
red to serve w from the age of twenty years and upwards."! 
But before any of them could legally engage in officiating 
as priests, they must observe the law relating to their conse- 
cration. They must he, by Divine authority, set apart to 
their office. Therefore Jesus Christ, when he was "about 
thirty years of age,"t in giving the reason why he was then 
to be baptized or have water applied to him, says, it was "to 
fulfill all righteousness."^ " To fulfill all righteousness" 
is simply to comply perfectly with every portion of a righte- 
ous law. As Jesus Christ came into the world to fulfill per- 
fectly every part of the Divine law ; so, in entering on the 
public discharge of what the office of a priest required, he 
would comply with the Divine direction given to the Levit- 
ical priests by the ministry of Moses. God commanded Mo- 
ses to '•'wash" Aaron and his sons "with water;" and he 
"washed them with water."|| Here the priests are com- 
manded to be washed with water. To comply with this law, 
our Saviour must be washed with water in some mode, be- 
fore he could legally enter publicly upon his priestly office. 
These passages do not mention the mode by which the priests 
were to be washed, but another does. It is this ; " Thus 
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of 
purifying upon them."ft The Levites then, including the 
family of Aaron, were all to be wa,shed by having " water 
of purifying" sprinkled on them when they were about to 
begin to minister in holy things. When Christ was about 
thirty years old, he was so far advanced in life, that no one 
on account of his age, could deny his right to enter publicly 
upon the office of a priest. But to enter this office legally, 
he must be baptized, or have water applied to him by a Le- 
vite of the family of Aaron, or of some other family. John 
was by birth a priest, and therefore as such, as well as from 
his office of prophet, and that of Christ's forerunner («), he 
was a proper person to set apart legally, the Son of God to 

*Luke 3: 23. fNam. 4: 3, 1 Chron. 23; 21, 2 Chron. 31: 17. J Luke 3: 23. §Mat. 3: 
15. ||Ex. 40: 12, Lev. 8: G, TINum. 8: 7. (a)Ch. 1, § 1, par. 1-7. 



Ch. 2, § 7.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. S§ 

his priestly office. For this purpose water must be applied 
to him, according to the provisions of the Levitical law. He 
was not taken to " the door of the tabernacle ;"* for that 
was a mere circumstance, essential to the ordinance only 
when it was mentioned, and at no time connected with it only 
while the tabernacle stood. Since, therefore, our Saviour 
was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness/ 7 or in other words, 
to Comply with the requirements of a just law ; and since 
no law, except that which required the priests to be washed 
with water, required persons, at or about the age of thirty, 
to have water applied to them as an ordinance ; it follows as 
an undeniable inference that he was baptized in order to be 
legally set apart to his priestly office. 

7. To complete his consecration as a priest, Christ was 
anointed. The Levitical priests were to be anointed 
" throughout their generations." God said to Moses, " thou 
shalt anoint" Aaron; — "thou shalt anoint" his sons ; and 
"Moses took of the anointing oil — and sprinkled it upon 
Aaron— and upon his sons."f From these and similar ex- 
pressions it appears that the priests, Aaron and his sons, 
throughout their generations, were to be anointed with oil 
as a part of their consecration to qualify them to discharge 
publicly the duties of their office. The Lord Jesus Christ, 
when he was about to enter publicly upon his priestly office, 
was also anointed. He is (1.) called the "anointed" of the 
Lord.i; (2.) He is often called the "Messiah" and "the 
Christ. "§ The word Messiah in Hebrew and the word 
Christ in Greek, each denote the anointed. || (3.) He is said 
to be "anointed;" (4.) To be "anointed with the oil of 
gladness;? (5.) In this anointing, "the Spirit" was given 
him "without measure;" (6.) "The Lord"* — M God," the 
Father " anointed" him with the Spirit.Tf That Christ might 
legally act as a priest, he was not only baptized ; but he was 
also anointed with the Holy Spirit. This anointing was in- 
finitely superior to that of mere oil. Our Saviour therefore 
was in every respect legally set apart for the public dis- 
charge of the functions of the priesthood. For this purpose, 
he was baptized ; for this he was anointed. 

*Ex. 40: 12. fEx. 40: 13. 14, 1.5, Lev. 8: 12. 30. +Ps. 2: 2. $Dan. 9: 25, John 1: U. 
USee Hebrew and Greek Lexirans on the words, *!:Ps. 45: 7,lsa. til: 1, Luke 4: 18, 
John 3: 34, Acts 4: 27, and 10: 33. 



86 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

8. Christ was not baptized as a substitute for his people, 
It is not said in any part of the word of God, that he was 
baptized for that purpose. To say that he was, is therefore 
to turn aside from the scriptures as a rule of duty (a). It is 
often stated that he died to save " his people,' 7 " his sheep," — 
and to be a ransom for " many ;"* but in no passage of scrip- 
ture, is it said that he was baptized for his people or as a sub- 
stitute for them. Moreovei*, he lived under the Old Testament 
dispensation, when the ordinance of christian baptism was 
not required of his people^J. Hence they did not need a 
substitute to do that for them, which they themselves were 
not in duty bound to do. Besides, he himself expressly men- 
tions the reason why he was baptized. To " fulfill all righ- 
teousness," not to be a substitute for his people, is the rea- 
son he gives for receiving John's baptism. The Lord Jesus 
Christ was not therefore baptized as a substitute for his people. 

9. He was not baptized to set an example for his followers. 
No such instruction is given in the Holy book of God. Our 
Saviour himself definitely declares that he was baptized for 
a certain purpose. This was "to fulfill all righteousness," 
not to set an example for his followers. He definitely states 
for what he was baptized. Men tell us that, in receiving 
John's baptism, he had a design different from that which he 
mentions. He says he was baptized "to fulfill all righte- 
ousness ;" men say, he was baptized to set his followers an 
example. Which are we bound to believe ? Jesus Christ 1 
or mere man 1 Christians believe what Christ says en this 
subject as well as on others, rather than the mere assertions 
of mere men. 

10. If Christ, in his baptism, did set an example, it is not 
imitated by his followers. To imitate an example set by a 
person, is to do what the person did. A number of things 
concurred in our Saviour's baptism. (1.) He M was baptiz- 
ed" by "John;" (2.) "In" or at or near the "Jordan;" 
(3.) " With" its waters; (4.) When he was "about thirty 
years of age;" (5.) Not "in the name of the Father," 
"Son" and "Holy Ghost;" and (6 ) "To fulfill" the re- 
quirements of the Levitical law which pointed out the mode 
of consecrating the priests. All this we learn from the po- 

(a)See rule No. 4. 5. *Mat. 1: 21, John 10: 11. 15, Mat. 20:28. (b) Ch. 1, $ 4, par.«. 



Ch. 2, § 10. J BAPTISM WITH WATER. 37 

sitive declarations of God's word.* To imitate our Saviour's 
example in baptism, it is necessary to comply with all these 
points. None now pretend to be baptized by John ; for he 
has been dead more than 1800 years. Very few are bap- 
tized at the Jordan or with its waters ; nor do any pretend 
that persons can be baptized by its waters and by no others. 
None put off their baptism till they are thirty years of age. 
By all who baptize with water, except the Sabians of Syria, 
some Ariaus(a), and perhaps a few others ; the name of 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is used in baptism. Nor are 
any baptized "to fulfill" the requirements of the Levitical 
law. After John^s death, and in countries remote from the 
river Jordan ; no one ever has or ever could imitate Christ 
in his baptism. Why then do men who plunge persons in a 
pond, brook or cistern, more than five thousand miles from 
the Jordan, talk of imitating Christ in his baptism % Do 
they not know that they do not imitate, in any one of its 
parts, the baptism of our blessed Saviour ? They do not 
even plunge in the Jordan as they say John did. Do they 
really suppose that persons who think for themselves, can 
imagine that to be plunged in any water by any person, is to 
follow the example of the Lord Jesus Christ who was bap- 
tized by John in, or at the Jordan ? Can they believe that 
a brook, pond or cistern, in America, Europe or Africa, is 
the river Jordan in Asia ? Can they imagine that he who 
immerses them is John the Baptist I If they cannot ; how 
can they be so duped as to imagine that they imitate the ex- 
ample of Christ, when they are plunged in water five thou- 
sand miles from the Jordan, in the name of the Trinity, by a 
person they know is not John the Baptist % As Christ was 
not baptized by the same person, or by the same officer, or in 
the same name, or for the same purpose, or in the same 
place(b), that his followers are ; therefore they do not imi- 
tate him in his baptism. 

If his baptism was intended as an example for his follow- 
ers, the whole of it must be imitated. An example must be 
followed in all its parts. This must be the case, from its 
very nature as an example. If the whole is not to be fol- 

*Mat.3: 13-16, Mark 1; 8, 9, Luke 3-. 23, Acts 19: 2-5. fa;The Arians deny the 
supreme deity of Jesus Chiist. It is said that in Great Britain and Ireland, some of 
them baptize' in the name ofGfid, not using the words Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 
See B. iv. P. iv, Ch 3, $ 3. (7>;Ch. 1, $ 1. 17. 18, Ch. 2, $ 2. 4.6. 



3S BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. lU* 

lowed ; who is to determine which part of the example is to 
he imitated, and which is not % If one person, without Di- 
vine authority, may refuse to imitate one part of an exam- 
ple, another person may refuse to imitate another of its parts; 
and thus, by different persons, the whole example might be 
set aside, or be rendered totally useless. What therefore is 
given to us as an example, must be imitated in all its parts, 
unless God makes exceptions ; and then the excepted parts 
do not belong in fact to the example. What is not given as 
an example for our imitation, we have no right to make such. 

Immersers say, though the word of God does not, that 
Christ was plunged in Jordan by John the Baptist. They 
say, this was for an example to his followers ; though Christ 
gives a different reason for his baptism (a). But if our Sa- 
viour was baptized to set an example for his followers, then 
immersers do not follow it in any one of its parts. They do 
not go to the Jordan, are not plunged by John, and most of 
them have the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost used 
when they are immersed. They do not therefore imitate 
any port of the example which they say our Saviour set 
them. Besides, no one does or ever did follow it since the 
death of John. Even those who are most ready to boast of 
their fidelity in this respect, are as far from doing what he 
did when he was baptized, as they frequently are from obey- 
ing his positive commands in other matters. 

Even if he were plunged in the Jordan, those who are 
plunged in another stream, no more imitate the baptism of 
Christ in such an act, than would the person who should go 
near the river Jordan without having a drop of water applied 
to him. Neither would imitate Christ in his baptism ; for to 
do a very small part of what he did, is not to imitate his ex- 
ample. Indeed to pretend that we follow his example when 
we only aim at doing a very small part of what we say he 
did, is, at best, but solemn trifling. 

It is the business of the christian to take for examples, 
those actions which the word of God mentions as such. He 
has no right to make that an example which the scriptures 
do not present for our imitation. Christ was circumcised 
when he was " eight days" old ; he was " baptized" when 
he was ''about thirty years of age j" and just before his 

(a) § 9. 



CH. 3, § 1.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 39 

death he " eat" the " passover."* But not the least hint is 
given which might lead us to suppose that any one of these 
his actions, was intended as an example which his followers 
are to imitate. His baptism we know was not intended for 
our imitation ; because he himself positively declares that 
his baptism was intended for another purpose (a). To take 
it therefore as an example, is, in this matter to act, not only 
without Divine authority ; but it is to act in direct opposition 
to the positive declaration of the Lord Jesus Christ, when he 
says, he was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness. "f 

Jesus Christ complied with all the Divine institutions 
which were in force during his ministry on earth. In this 
way he honored, as well as " magnified" "the law."| In 
the same manner also, men are bound to comply with all the 
Divine institutions which are in force during the dispensa- 
tion under which they live. He introduced none of the tra- 
ditions of men into religion. He in fact excluded from it, 
every invention of man.§ All should do this ; because the 
word of God directs the whole human family in religious du- 
ties to go "to the law and to the testimony." It declares, 
" if they speak not according to this word, it is because there 
is no light in them."|| What does not accord with God's 
word, is destitute of Divine light, and cannot therefore be, 
or be made by man, a part of Spiritual religion. 

CHAPTER IIL 

THE BAPTISM WHICH CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES ADMINISTER- 
ED BEFORE HIS RESURRECTION, 

1. Jesus Christ himself baptized his twelve Apostles. The 
testimony of God's word is very plain on this point. (1.) 
It is positively declared that "Jesus and his disciples" came 
"into the land of Judea and there he tarried with them and 
baptized."^! He came into " Judea" with "his disciples," 
" tarried with them" and " baptized." If it be asked, whom 
did he baptize ? the answer must be ; he baptized "them." 
If it is asked, who are intended by the word " them V 3 the 
answer must be, " his disciples." The language when ex- 
amined is very definite. Jesus Christ therefore baptized his 

*Luke 2: 21, and 3: 21. 33, and 22: 15. (a) § 6-9. tMat. 3: 15. Jlsau 42: 2L $See 
Mat 5; 33, 34. 43, 44, and 15; 9. jjtsa, 8; 20. TTJoiin 3; 22. 



40 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

twelve disciples. (2.) The disciples of John in addressing 
him, teach the same truth. They say to him ; " Rabbi, he 
that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest 
witness ; behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to 
him. 7 '* They declare the fact that Jesus baptized ; but they 
do not say that he baptized all men ; nor that he baptized 
all who came to him. Here then we have another passage 
to prove the fact that our Saviour administered baptism. (3.) 
It is also stated that " Jesus made and baptized more disci- 
ples than John.' 7 t Two facts are here presented for our 
consideration. The first is ; Jesus made and baptized disci- 
ples ; the second, he made and baptized more disciples than 
John. The immediate followers of Christ were " the 
twelve."J The number of John's immediate disciples or at- 
tendants was less than twelve ; for Christ's disciples or im- 
mediate attendants, were only "twelve, 57 and they exceeded 
John's in number. John's must therefore have been less 
than twelve. (4.) Jesus did not baptize any but " the twelve. 77 
This is manifest from the fact that when it is said that " Je- 
sus made and baptized more disciples than John ;' 7 it is im- 
mediately added, " Jesus baptized not 77 any others, " but 
his disciples' 7 did.§ Our Saviour baptized his twelve disci- 
ples in Enon. This is clearly intimated, if not expressed, 
in this language ; "Jesus — baptized" 7 his disciples; "and 
John also was baptizing in Enon, 7 ' — "and they came and 
were baptized. ' 7 || To say that John also baptized in Enon, 
shows that Jesus Christ, who just before is said to have bap- 
tized, administered the ordinance in that place as well as 
John. If he had not, the word also would not have been 
used in that connection. 

2. The twelve Apostles, or at least some of them, baptized 
before the resurrection of Christ. This is taught in the ex- 
pression, " Jesus — baptized not but his disciples ; 7 '|f that 
is, "his disciples 77 baptized. Who weie baptized by the 
twelve, we are not informed. They may, however, have 
baptized the "seventy" disciples, or the " hundred and 
twenty,' 7 whom Peter addressed immediately after the as- 
cension of Christ.** A part of these might in fact have been 
the seventy sent out by our Saviour to every city which he 

*John 3: 26. fJohs 4: 1. {Mat 10: 1, and 11: 1, Mark 3: 14, and 6: 7, Luke 6; 13, and 
9: 1. §John 4: 1. 2. ||3; 22. 23. TT4; 2. **Luke Nh 1, Acts 1: 15. 



Cll. 3, § 3, 4, 5.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 41 

intended to visit personally during his ministry on earth. 
But, that the disciples of Christ baptized some persons be- 
fore his resurrection, is certain from the language already 
quoted. 

3. The baptism which the disciples of Christ administered 
before his resurrection, was administered by his authority. 
He himself baptized by his own authority as King and Head 
of his own church. He needed no commission from any oth- 
er being to authorize him to administer baptism, But his 
disciples being mere men, must derive all their authority to 
administer Divine ordinances from a Divine Person. That 
he authorized them to baptize, may be learned; (1.) from 
the fact that at the time they administered baptism, they were 
with him.* (2.) He did not reprove them for baptizing. 
This he would certainly have done, had they attempted to 
baptize without his approbation. (3.) The whole passage, 
where it is stated that they baptized, shows that they admin- 
istered the ordinance with his approbation and authority.* 
That he therefore authorized them to baptize, cannot in truth 
be denied. 

4. The baptism administered by the disciples of Christ, 
was confined to the Jewish nation. When Christ sent them 
out before his resurrection ; he commanded them not to go 
" into the way of the Gentiles,' 7 or enter " into any city of 
the Samaritans ;' 7 but to go " to the lost sheep of the house 
of Israel."! They were not by this authority, allowed to 
go among the Gentiles or into any Samaritan city ; and as 
this was the only commission under which they acted, till 
after the resurrection of Christ, it must, in all its parts, have 
been confined to the Jewish nation. By it they were not 
permitted so much as to go among other nations. They 
therefore could not by it be allowed to baptize any but Jews. 

5. This commission to go among the Jews only, did not in- 
clude succession. It was given to individuals. It did not 
authorize them to send out others as Christ had sent them 
out. They therefore could not, by this commission transfer 
to others, the powers which, by it, they had received. £ It 
did not therefore include succession, or authorize those to 
whom it was given to transfer its powers to other persons. 

*See John 3: 22. 23, and 4: 1. 2. |Mat. 10: 5. 6. +See Mat, 10: 5-20 



42 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

6. The baptism which Christ personally administered, was 
not the ordinance of christian baptism. This will be evident 
from a few considerations. (1.) He administered this bap- 
tism before the Old Testament dispensation terminated. 
This ended at his dea.ih(a). Before this, he baptized his 
twelve disciples.* (2.) When he baptized the twelve, the 
ordinance of christian baptism was not instituted. Its insti- 
tution did not take place till after his resurrection.! (3.) 
Christ's mission on earth was limited to the Jews. He de- 
clares, M I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house 
of Israel. 77 | Christian baptism as an ordinance extended to 
M all nations. 7 ' When therefore Christ administered the or- 
dinance only to Jews, and to but twelve of them ; it could 
not be that which might be extended to Gentiles also. (4.) 
" The eleven disciples 77 and their successors in office, were 
all that were commissioned to administer the ordinance of 
christian baptism. § Christ was not one of these. He com- 
missioned the eleven and their successors in the ministerial 
office to baptize ; and he might if he had chosen to do so, 
have administered the ordinance ; but we have no evidence 
that what he administered personally was the ordinance of 
christian baptism. From these and other evidences which 
might be adduced, it may be clearly ascertained that the 
baptism which our Saviour personally administered before 
his resurrection, was not the ordinance usually called chris- 
tian baptism. 

7. 1\.e baptism which the disciples administered be-fore 
the resurrection of Christ, icas not christian baptism. This 
is ascertained, (1 ) From the fact that the Old Testament 
dispensation had not then terminated, nor the New com- 
menced^. Of the New, not of the Old dispensation, is 
christian baptism an ordinance. (2.) This their first com- 
mission was confined to the Jews and did not include succes- 
sion^). The baptism under it could not therefore be chris- 
tian baptism ; because the commission authorizing that, ex- 
tended to " all nations 77 and included succession M even unto 
the end of the world. J, || (3.) When they administered bap- 
tism before the death of Christ, the Old Testament ordinance 

(a)Qh. 1. $ 2 par. 5. 6. *Mat. Ifc 5 C. \?ee Mat. 28: 6. 19. tMat. 15: 24. §See 
Mat, 28: 19. (b)Sec Ch. 1, § 2. (c)$ 4. 5, ||Mat. 28: 19. 20. 



Ch. 3, § 8.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 43 

of the " passover"* was in full force(a). Christian bap- 
tism therefore which is a New Testament ordinance, could 
not be in full force at the same time. These reasons, with 
many others which might be mentioned, show that the bap- 
tism administered by the disciples of Christ before his resur- 
rection, was not in very deed, the ordinance of christian 
baptism. 

8. The hapiism which Christ and his twelve disciples ad- 
ministered before his resurrection, was designed to be a sub- 
stitute for christian baptism. To perceive clearly the truth 
of this proposition, it will be necessary to attend with care 
to several points. (1.) If Christ, in his wisdom saw fit, he 
had a right to institute an ordinance which should, for the 
time being and in special cases, be a substitute for christian 
baptism. Those very perfections by which he might autho- 
ritatively institute the positive ordinance of christian bap- 
tism, might, if he chose, be exercised in instituting a sub- 
stitute for it to be and continue in force for a time. As 
head of his church, he had a right to institute positive ordi- 
nances ; and therefore, if he saw proper, he might institute 
substitutes for them. But this prerogative does not belong 
to mere creatures. (2.) With Christ, "the twelve" disci- 
ples " eat the" last M passover."t At this time their circum- 
cision was in force as the seal of the covenant; for "no 
uncircumcised person"! was allowed to eat of the passover. 
If an "uncircumcised" person even entered the " sanctua- 
ry, "§ it was thereby rendered ceremonially unclean. An 
uncircumcised person was not, by Divine authority, permit- 
ted to enter a sacred place ; much less to eat the passover. 
When therefore the disciples eat of the paschal sacrifice 
with Christ's approbation ; their circumcision then must 
have been valid. (3.) A person's standing in the New 
Testament church, was indicated by baptism, not by circum- 
cision. This was the case with the Jews who had been cir- 
cumcised, as well as with the Gentiles who had not received 
that "seal of the righteousness" of faith. j| Paul, though a 
"Hebrew of the Hebrews" and "circumcised the eighth 
day," yet when he was about to enter the New Testament 
church, was directed to " be baptized ;" and " he arose and 

*Luke 22: 15. (a;Ch.l, § 2. fM a t. 26; 17-25, Mark 14: 12-21, Luke 22; 7-15. ^Ex, 
12; 48. $E*ek. 44:7,9. || Rom, 4: 11, 



44 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. III. 

was baptized."* He was taught by the Holy Spirit that his 
"circumcision" was then "nothing."! As, in New Testa- 
ment times this sign did not avail "any thing" to those who 
were " in Christ Jesus"! or to others ; it could not therefore 
under the New dispensation be a seal of God's covenant. 
While circumcision was a "token" or seal of the "ever- 
lasting covenant" which Divine mercy had made with his 
visible people, so far from being at that time "nothing" and 
of no avail, its "advantage" was great "every way."§ But 
when, as a religious rite, it became "nothing;''' then the 
Jews or "the men of Judea" and those who dwelt "at Jeru- 
salem," having asked ; "What shall we do V* were direct- 
ed to "be baptized." This direction was given on "the 
day of Pentecost," fifty days after our Saviour's crucifixion. 
It was given to those who, because they were Jews, were 
circumcised. In the case of these therefore, as well as in 
that of Paul, we are taught that the standing of the circum- 
cised Jew in the New Testament church, was to be known 
and acknowledged by baptism, not by circumcision. The 
standing in the visible chuich of Cornelius and his "friends" 
who were all "Gentiles," was recognized and acknowled- 
ged by baptism. fl The yoke of circumcision was not there- 
fore laid upon any in New Testament times.** Were it 
necessary, much additional evidence might be adduced to 
prove that the standing of every member in the New Testa- 
ment church, was publicly acknowledged by baptism, and 
that of not one of them by circumcision. (4.) No unbaptized 
person can be publicly recognized as a member of the New 
Testament church, or have in it a ratified standing. By Di- 
vine authority, and by that only, can a creature enter into 
covenant relation with God. By the same authority must 
this relation be recognized and confirmed. " Be baptized" 
was the direction of God to all who desired to enjoy a ratifi- 
ed standing as members of the New Testament church ; 
and those who were publicly acknowledged as its members, 
were "baptized" at the time the public recognition of their 
membership took place. ft In the word of God, there is no 
precept or example authorizing unbaptized persons to be 

*Acts9: 18, and 22: 16. ft Cor 7: 19. fGal. 5: 6. §Gen. 17: 7 13, Rom. 3: 1. 2. 
|| Acts 2: 1. 14. 37. 38. ITActs 10: 24. 45. 47, 48. **See Acts 15: 1. 6-20. 24. 28. 29. 
ft Acts 2. 41, and 8: 12. 13. 37. 38, and 10: 47. 48, and 16: 15. 33. 



Ch. 3, § 8.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 45 

publicly acknowledged as ratified members of God's church 
in New Testament times. As under the Old Testament the 
covenant was not ratified by those who were in it, till the 
seal of circumcision was applied to them ; so in New Tes- 
tament times, the covenant is not ratified or completed in all 
its parts till baptism is received. No unbaptized person can 
therefore, be an acknowledged member of the church in 
New Testament times ; nor can any such person be entitled 
to its special privileges. (5.) The apostles of Christ had an 
acknowledged standing in the New Testament church. 
This appears from the fact that they performed all the du- 
ties required of its members and enjoyed all the privileges 
which any of its members could enjoy. They received the 
sacrament of the Lord's supper ; they held the office of New 
Testament ministers ; they administered the New Testament 
ordinances of baptism and the holy supper.* They must 
therefore have had a standing in the New Testament church. 
This must, in their case, have been publicly acknowledged 
and ratified. This standing did not, as has been shown(a), 
belong to them in consequence of their circumcision. By 
baptism therefore they must have been publicly recognized 
and acknowledged as ratified members of the New Testa- 
ment church, and therefore entitled to all its privileges. Je- 
sus Christ baptized them(£). There is not, in the whole 
word of God, the least shadow of evidence, that they were 
re-baptized, either before or after the death of Christ. The 
baptism therefore which Jesus Christ administered to them, 
and in consequence of which, (for we have no evidence that 
they received any other) they were publicly recognized as 
ratified members of the visible church in New Testament 
times, must have been, either christian baptism or a substi- 
tute for that ordinance. But it was not, as we have seen(c), 
in fact the christian ordinance of baptism ; for that, in the 
case of the apostles, it must therefore have been a substitute. 
(6.) Till the disciples " eat the" last " passover" with the 
Lord Jesus Christ, their circumcision was a valid seal of 
the covenant ; for "no uncircumcised person" might "eat 
thereof. J 't As soon as that passover was "kept" by them, 
their baptism became a valid substitute for christian bap- 

*See Mat. 26: 26. 27. and 28: 19, Acts 2: 42. 46, and 16: 15. 33, and 20: 7, 1 Cor. 1: 
14. 16, and 11: 23-29 (a) par. 3. (b)§ 1. (c)§6. \Ex. 12: 48. 



46 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

tism ; for no unbaptized person can have a ratified, public- 
ly acknowledged standing in the New Testament church ; 
or be authorized to eat the Lord's supper, preach the gospel 
or administer New Testament ordinances(a) ; and all this, 
with much more, the disciples did. Their circumcision then 
was valid till the last passover was kept and then their bap- 
tism became and remained a valid substitute for christian 
baptism. 

By similar evidence, it may be proved ; that, if any of 
those to whom the apostles administered baptism before the 
resurrection of Christ, were, after this, publicly recognized 
as members of the New Testament church ; their baptism 
was also, by the Saviour, intended -to answer as a substitute 
for the ordinance of christian baptism. 



PART FOURTH. 

BAPTISM ADMINISTERED BY DIVINE AUTHORITY AFTER THE 
RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 

CHAPTER I. 

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

1. Christian baptism was not instituted till after the resur- 
rection of Christ. That baptism unto Moses and the divers 
washings or baptisms used in the ceremonial purifications of 
the Jews, were not the ordinance of christian baptism, is too 
evident to need illustration. John's was not christian bap- 
tism (5), nor was that administered to Jesus Christ (c); nor 
yet was that administered to or by the twelve apostles before 
the resurrection of Christ, the ordinance of christian bap- 
tism (d). That the ordinance of christian baptism was not 
instituted at the same time with the Eucharist, is manifest 
from the fact that at that time not one word is spoken con- 
cerning baptism.* Nor is baptism so much as mentioned 
while Christ was on the cross or in the tomb.f There is not 
therefore the least shadow of evidence to prove that chris- 
tian baptism was instituted before the resurrection of our Sa- 

(a) Par. 4. 5. (b(P. iii, Ch. 1, <S 1«. (c)V. iii, Ch. 2, § 4. (d) P. m, Ch. 3, $ 6. 7. 
8. *See Mat 26: 14-20, Mark 14: 12-26, Luke 22: 7-20. 'tSee Mat. 27: 29-66, and2S: 
1-8, Mark la: 1.5-47, and 16: 1-J1, Lake 23: 27-56, and 24: 1-1 ± 



Ch. 1, § 2, 3.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 47 

viour. Those then who take the word of God for their rule 
of duty (a) cannot believe that it was instituted before that 
event. 

2. Christian baptism is an instituted ordinance. An in- 
stituted ordinance is an external requirement which is to be 
performed in succeeding generations. That which is requi- 
red to be done in it, must be perceptible by the senses. It 
must also represent something Spiritual. He who issues the 
command by which an ordinance is instituted, must have the 
requisite authority, or the observance of the ordinance, in- 
stead of being a religious duty, would be but solemn trifling. 
In christian baptism is found every thing that is essential to 
an instituted ordinance (Z»), and therefore it must be such. 

3. Jesus Christ after his resurrection instituted the ordi- 
nance of christian baptism. In the command to his disciples 
to teach -'all nations, baptizing them,"* he instituted the or- 
dinance of christian baptism. He commanded it to be obser- 
ved. A visible emblem was to be used (c); it was to be per- 
formed in succeeding ages (fZ); and the command was given 
by him who had the requisite authority. Before he gave the 
command to teach and baptize "all nations, 77 he declared; 
"All power is given unto me in Heaven and in earth. "f As 
in his human nature merely, he could not receive "all pow- 
er ; 77 and as in his Divine nature, he already possessed this 
power (e) ; he therefore in his human and Divine natures 
united in one Person, might and did receive all power " in 
Heaven and in earth. 77 Jesus Christ therefore as Emman- 
uel, " God with us, 7 't instituted the ordinance of christian 
baptism. Being possessed of "all power,' 7 and being "Head 
over ail things to the church, 77 § he had all the authority 
which was requisite to institute this ordinance. He did this 
after the Angel had expressly stated ; "He is not here 77 in 
the tomb ; " He is risen as he said. 77 || It is evident there- 
fore, (1,) That Jesus Christ instituted the ordinance of chris- 
tian baptism ; (2.) That this was a mediatorial act ; for he, 
as God and man in one Person, instituted this ordinance ; 
(3.) That he instituted it after his resurrection ; (4.) That 
persons were to receive this ordinance. 

(a)riee Rule No. 5. (b.) § 3. 4. *Mat. 28: 19 in Greek, (c § 4. d §8. (&)V. 
i.Ch. 2, §4. fAlat. 23: 13. $Mat4: 23. §Eph 1; 22, ||Mat. 28: 6. 



48 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

4. Water is the visible emblem to be used in christian bap- 
tism. (1.) The command by which Christ authorized his 
disciples to administer the ordinance of christian baptism, 
shows that they were to baptize with water (a). These ac- 
tually administered the ordinance which was required by 
their commission. (2.) Inspired men used water \f hen they 
baptized. Peter enquires; "Can any man forbid water 
that" Cornelius and his friends " should not be baptized ?" 
and the Eunuch said ; " See, here is water ; what doth hin- 
der me to be baptized V 7 And after he and Philip " went 
down into the water, 7 ' — the Eunuch was " baptized. 77 * 
These, and many other similar expressions, show clearly 
that water is to be used in administering the ordinance of 
christian baptism. (3.) It is to be clean water ; for God, 
speaking to his people of New Testament times, says; "Then 
will I sprinkle clean water upon you. 7 't In this passage, 
we are taught by the prophet of the Lord that clean water 
is to be used by Divine authority in the New Testament 
church. But in this, water is used as a Divine ordinance 
only in baptism. In fulfilling this prediction therefore, clean 
water must be used in baptism. It is evident then, from 
God 7 s word, that clean water is the visible emblem which 
Divine wisdom has authorized to be used when christian bap- 
tism is administered. 

5. The eleven Apostles and their successors in the minis- 
terial office, are authorized to administer christian baptism. 
Our Saviour after proving by his resurrection from the dead, 
that he possessed all power in Heaven and in earth, said to 
" the eleven disciples ;"' *' Go ye therefore and teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them. 77 Before Christ gave them this com- 
mand, they had no authority to teach and baptize the vari- 
ous nations of the earth ; because, before this, no such au- 
thority was given them. In this command " the eleven 7 ' 
received their commission as ministers of the New Testa- 
ment church ; for at this time and not before, they are di- 
rected to teach and baptize all nations This direction was 
in fact their commission to act as his ambassadors. Without 
it, they had no authority either to preach to the nations or 
baptize them. For them or others to attempt to do either 

(a) P. i, Ch. 1, $ 3. P. i, Ch. 2: § 2. 3. *Acts 10: 47, and 8: 36. 38. fEzek. 30: 25. 



Oh. 1, § 5.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 49 

without Divine authority, would be mere will-worship or re- 
bellion against the King of Zion. But while " the eleven" 
received this ministerial commission from the Lord Jesus 
Christ, it was not confined to them personally. They were 
to transmit to others their office of gospel ministers. That 
their commission was not confined to their own persons, but 
that it was to be handed down to others, is manifest from 
the promise which it contains. It is this ; " Lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world."* The com- 
mission must either be transmitted to others ; or these must 
live till the end of time. But, as Christ taught his disciples 
explicitly, that they should die ;f it follows therefore that 
this their commission was to be transferred to others. It 
was to be transmitted f* to faithful men who" should " be 
able to teach others/'! Those who were to receive from 
them, and be their successors in, this office, were to be faith- 
ful to the Lord Jesus Christ, or true believers. They were 
also to be men of learning who should be able, to teach others 
to observe "all things whatsoever" he had "commanded" 
in his word.§ To do this, even in a degree, much knowledge 
is necessary. Since therefore the ministerial commission 
given to " the eleven" is to be transferred from them through 
their successors in office from generation to generation "un- 
to the end of the world;" it is certain that whatever this 
commission required them to do, is required of all to whom 
it is transmitted by our Saviour's authority. Those to whom 
it was personally given, were to teach and baptize, and also 
to administer the Lord's supper. || Those therefore who have 
proper authority to teach all that he commanded in his word ; 
or in other words, to preach the gospel, and also to admin- 
ister New Testament ordinances, have this commission trans- 
mitted to them. To teach what the word of God contains 
and to administer these ordinances, is precisely what "the ele- 
ven" were, and their successors in office are, empowered to 
do by this commission. As the whole commission was there- 
tore given to the eleven, and as they were to "commit" it 
" to faithful men who should be able to teach others" what 
it required to be taught ; that part of it requiring them to ad- 
minister baptism must belong to all to whom the whole com- 

-*Mat. 28: 16. 1« 19. 20. jMat. 10: 28. and 24: 9, Luke 21: 16, John 16: 2, Acts 12: 2. 
%2 Tim. 2: 2. $AJat. 2e: 20. ||See 1 Cor. 11: 23-29. 

4 



50 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

mission is intrusted ; that is, to the eleven and to their suc- 
cessors in the ministerial office. But Christ authorized no 
others to preach or baptize. 

" The eleven" had another commission given them before 
they were intrusted with this. It was their apostolic commis- 
sion. To have this, the person must, (1.) see the Lord Jesus 
Christ with his natural eyes. (2.) He must be appointed to it 
by a personal act of Christ. (3.) tie must be able to work 
miracles. (4.) This commission cannot be transferred or com- 
mitted to others by him to whom it is given. (5.) Those who 
claim, the apostolic office, unless they have these marks are 
called " liars."* When a man exhibits these marks to prove 
that his is the apostolic commission; all are bound to admit his 
authority. But if he who claims to have the apostolic commis- 
sion of the disciples, cannot show these signs of an apostle ; 
all are bound to treat him as a deceiver who lays claim to that 
which he does not possess. True ministers of Christ claim 
the ministerial, not the apostolic office of the eleven. 

6. Christian baptism must be administered in the name of 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This, in the commission to 
teach and baptize, our Saviour expressly requires. He pos- 
itively commands his ministering servants to baptize " in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, ''f 
In administering the ordinance of baptism, he has not author- 
ized them to omit this name or substitute another in its place. 
If persons do either therefore when they apply water to oth- 
ers; their act, with such an omission or alteration, cannot 
be the baptism which Christ requires to be administered ; for 
this must be administered in the name of the Trinity. To 
omit, in baptism, the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, 
would be to attempt to baptize in no name or in an unautho- 
rized one. In either case the act would be but solemn mock- 
ery. Whoever therefore has received christian baptism, 
has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost ; for Christ has not authorized any person either di- 
rectly or indirectly to administer it in any other name. 

7. Christian baptism is to be administered to Gentiles as 
well as Jews. This is taught, (1.) in the commission given 

♦See Mat. 10: 1-15, Luke 9: 1-6, Acts 1: 21-36, and 9: 17, and 26: 16, Bom, 1: 1-5, 
and 15: 19, 1 Cor. 1: 1, and 4: 9, and 9: 1, and 12: 28,2 Cor. 11: 13, and 12: U,Eph. 4: 11, 
Rev. 2: 2, Gal. 1: 1, 1 Cor. 15: 8, |Mat. 2ft 19. 



Cll. 1, § 8, 9.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 51 

to baptize. The disciples and their successors in office are 
commanded to " teach all nations, baptizing them.' 7 * All 
nations is an expression which includes both Jews and Gen- 
tiles. (2.) In obedience to the requirement contained in 
this commission, both Jews and Gentiles were baptized by- 
inspired men. On " the day of Pentecost," many Jews 
" were baptized."! Soon after Stephen's martyrdom, not a 
few "men and women" in Samaria, "were baptized. "| "Cor- 
nelius," — "his kinsmen and near friends," were "Gen- 
tiles." On them the Holy Ghost was poured out ; and they 
were "baptized."^ It is clear therefore that christian bap- 
tism is to be administered to Gentiles as well as Jews, 

8. Christian baptism is to continue in the Ne.w Testament 
church till the end of time. (1.) As the whole commission 
requiring this baptism to be administered, is to remain in full 
forcefaj "even unto the end of the world ;"|| so that part 
of it requiring this ordinance must remain in force as long. 
(2.) The eleven and their successors in office are required 
to administer baptism as one part of their official duty, till 
the world shall endfajft ; so long therefore will the ordi- 
nance continue to be administered. (3.) There is no evi- 
dence either in the word of God or in the nature of christian 
baptism to prove that it will be discontinued in the church 
of Christ. Convincing evidence is therefore presented to 
the mind that this ordinance is to be observed in the christian 
church " even unto the end of the world." 

9. Christian baptism is a significant ordinance. In the 
Lord's supper, is a lively emblem of the "death" of Christ. 
The bread broken aptly symbolizes his sufferings on the 
cross ; and the wine poured out, his blood shed.** When he 
died, his soul and body were separated. His burial was no 
part of his sufferings or death, though it was of his humilia- 
tion. Had his soul and body continued separate, the ordi- 
nance of christian baptism would not have been instituted ; 
for it was not till after he rose from the dead, that he direc- 
ted his ministering servants to go and " teach all nations, 
baptizing them." When he rose from the dead, his soul and 
body were re-united again. This re-union, not his depar- 
ture from the tomb, constituted his resurrection. He, after 

*Mat. 28: 19. tActs 2: 1. <14, 41. ±Ads 8: 2.9.12. $Acts. 10: 1.24. 45. 47. 48, 
UMat, 28: 20. (a)§ 5. TTMat. 28: 19. 20. **See 1 Cor, 11: 23-29. 



52 BIBLE BAPTISM. [6. I, V. IV# 

he rose from the dead, instituted the ordinance of christian 
baptism to represent the work of the Holy Spirit which he, 
as a living Saviour, sends forth into the hearts of sinners to 
renew and sanctify them(a). That christian baptism signi- 
fies or represents the work of the Spirit, in its various parts-, 
will appear to the reflecting mind when the attention is di- 
rected to a few passages in God's word which mention this 
subject. Christian baptism signifies, (1.) Regeneration by 
the power of the Holy Spirit. Of true christians it is said, 
" by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." Of this 
same work that is here called baptism, it is said " the Spirit 
quickeneth"* all in whom new life is produced. As rege- 
neration or the quickening power of the Spirit on the soul, 
is called baptism, so baptism must represent that operation of 
the Holy Ghost, by which a sinner is new-created in Christ 
Jesus the Lord.t (2.) It signifies conversion or the new 
birth which is the necessary effect of regeneration. Christ 
says of true believers that they are " born, not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;' 7 
that is, of God the Spirit : and again, " except a man be 
born of water," or is baptized, — "he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God" on earth, or become a member of the New 
Testament church : and, " except a man be born — of the 
Spirit," or made a new creature by the converting grace of 
the Holy Ghost, — " he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
God" above. t (3.) It represents the coming of Christ by 
his Spirit, into the soul of his people. Jesus Christ, it is 
said, "came by water and blood. "§ In New Testament 
times, water is used only in christian baptism as an ordi- 
nance in the church. When therefore it is said that Je- 
sus Christ came by water, it must be by water in baptism as 
an emblem of his Spirit's influence. (4.) It signifies union 
to or ingrafting into Christ. It is affirmed that " so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into 
his death :" it is said again ; " as the body is one — so also is 
Christ ; for by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body:*'* 

(a) The Lord Jesus Christ did not institute an ordinance of any kind, either to sym- 
bolize or represent the act of laying his dead bodv in tlir- tomb ; tor a mere man, Joseph 
of Arimathea, performed this act, as is taught in'Mat. 27: 57-60, A'ark 1.x 42-46, Luk« 
23: .50-53. Nor did he institute any ordinance to represent or commemorate the depart- 
ure of his body from the tomb after it was restored to life ; for this v. as an act that his 
mere human nature or even a mere creature might have performed. *1 Cor. 12: 13. 
John 6: 63. |See 2 Cor. 5: 17, Eph. 2: 10. % John 1: 13, and 3: 0.^ I John 5: 6. 



Ch. 1, § 10.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 53 

and yet again ; " as many of you as have been baptized into 
Jesus Christ, have put on Christ."* If those who are bap- 
tized with water, are united to Christ by faith ; then they 
possess both the sign and that which it signifies. But while 
the baptized live in a state of unbelief, the sign only is theirs. 
(5.) It represents the remission opsins. This appears from 
the declaration of God by Peter to the Jews; " Repent and 
be baptized every one of you — for the remission of sins ;"t 
and therefore justification for the sake of the righteousness 
of Christ imputed to the soul ; for remission or the pardon of 
sin, cannot in the subjects of it, be separated from justifica- 
tion by faith, or from sanctification in its origin in the soul. 
(6.) It denotes the sanctifying work of Christ's Spirit : for 
Jesus " Christ — loved the church and gave himself for it, 
that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of 
water by the word," through the effectual operation of his 
Spirit. To Paul it was said ; u arise and be baptized and 
wash away thy sins ;"i; and those who were baptized into 
Chrises death, are said to "walk in newness of life ;"§ or to 
live a life of faith upon the Son of God. (7.) It signifies 
salvation from sin and from its consequences. As the salva- 
tion of " eight souls" in the ark from the universal deluge, 
represented the salvation of those who are united to Christ 
by faith, from the flood of Divine wrath which shall one day 
sweep away all others ; so baptism with water is an external 
" figure" of that spiritual baptism which all must experience 
who have been, or ever shall be saved from sin and hell. || 
It is manifest from these observations that christian baptism 
is a significant ordinance ; and that it is an external sign of 
the work of Christ's Spirit in the souls of his people. 

10. Christian baptism is a sacrament of the New Testa- 
ment church. It has all the properties of such a sacrament. 
Christ as mediator instituted this ordinance^aj 1 . It has wa- 
ter for a sign(b). This may be perceived by the senses. It 
signifies and seals spiritual blessings^ c). That which is all 
this, must be a sacrament or a holy ordinance, by the parti- 
cipation of which, persons are solemnly bound in covenant 
to render obedience to him in whose name it is administer- 

*Rom. G: 3, 1 Cor. 12: 12. 13, Gal. 3: 27. tActs 2: 38. JEph. 5: 25. 26, 2 Thes. 2: 13, 
John 17: 17, Acts 22: 16, §Rom. 6; 4. |jSee 1 Pet. 3: 20. 21, (o)§ 3. (b)§ 4. 
fc)$ 9, U. 



54 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

ed(a). No ordinance can be a New Testament sacrament 
without all these. Even the Old Testament sacraments em- 
braced them all except being instituted by our Saviour while 
on earth. In fact one of them, is expressly called "a seal 
of the righteousness of — faith. 7 '* This therefore was a sign 
and seal of spiritual blessings. Christian baptism is then a 
New Testament sacrament ; because in it is found all that 
necessarily belongs to such a sacrament. 

11. Christian baptism is a seal by which blessings are con- 
firmed. No unbaptized person can be publicly recognized 
as a member of the visible church in its New Testament dis- 
pensation^^). Every person who is properly baptized, is. 
•from that fact, recognized as a member of the visible church. 
This truth the word of God clearly teaches; "they that 
gladly received the word, were baptized ; and the same day 
there were added unto" the then visible church "about five 
thousand souls ;" — " and they continued steadfastly in the 
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, 
and in prayers." . -Even Simon the Samaritan sorcerer, 
" when he was baptized — continued with Philip. "t Being 
baptized, he was so externally united with the visible people 
of God, that he continued with them. Those who are bap- 
tized members of the visible church, are often said to be seal- 
ed. No others are thus described. But since the baptized, 
and they only, are said to be sealed ; baptism must therefore 
be the seal ; or, in other words, the seal and christian bap- 
tism are merely two names for the same thing. The visi- 
ble church in its members, is baptized. This same church 
is called u a fountain seal."| Paul, under the inspiring in- 
fluence of the Holy Spirit, says of himself and other chris- 
tians ; "God — hath sealed us and given us the earnest of his 
Spirit in our hearts."^ The seal is here mentioned as some- 
thing distinct from the work of the Spirit in the heart. One 
angel said to others ; " Hurt not the earth — till we have seal- 
ed the servants of God in their foreheads. 7? || All baptized 
church members are, by profession, "sealed" servants of 
God. The angel noticed and marked these. For their sake, 
the earth was to be spared for a time. The number of the 
" sealed" is very great. For them God manifests a special 

(a)§ 12. 13. *Rom. 4: 11. (b)F. iii, Ch. 3, § 8, par. 4. fActs 2: 41. 42. and 8: 9. 13. 
JSong 4: 12. §2 Cor. 1: 21. 22. ||Rev. ?: 3. 4. 



Ch. 1, § 12.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 55 

regard. The " locusts" were commanded to hurt "only 
those men which have not the seal of God in their fore- 



heads.' 7 * This intimates that those who were 
should not be hurt by the locusts. " To the saints — at Ephe- 
sus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus/' it is said ; " after 
that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of 
promise which is the earnest of our inheritance. 77 ! The seal 
of the regenerating, converting and justifying grace of the 
Spirit, was applied to their souls the moment they believed; 
for "all that believe are justified, 77 — are "justified by faith; 73 
to them is " now no condemnation, 7 ' and they " ai'e born of 
God' 7 the Spirit. | But, as these Ephesians and others " were 
sealed after'''' they "believed;" the seal here mentioned 
must have been an external one applied to them by Divine 
authority ; or in other words, they received the baptismal 
seal after they believed, as they had not previously been 
baptized. From the preceding passages of scripture and 
others that might be quoted, it appears evident that persons 
are by baptism publicly recognized, under the New Testa- 
ment dispensation, as members of the visible church ; and 
that all baptized persons are, by profession, sealed servants of 
God. It is also manifest that christian baptism is a seal which 
confirms both temporal and spiritual blessings to the baptized. 
12. Christian baptism requires obedience to be rendered to 
him in whose name it is administered. To be baptized " in the 
name, 77 is to be baptized by the authority " of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 77 § In the adminis- 
tration therefore of this ordinance, the Triune God in whose 
name it is administered, claims sovereign authority. This 
includes the claim of obedience, prompt, implicit and uni- 
versal. When therefore baptism is administered in the 
name of the Trinity ; obedience to the Triune God is un- 
equivocally demanded. To baptize a person (s^) into the 
name of Father, Son and Spirit, j| is expressive of union to 
the Triune God as a sovereign. This relation includes a 
demand of obedience from the person baptized. Christian 
baptism therefore which must always be administered in or 
(sis) into the name of the Trinity (a) requires the baptized 
to render obedience to the Triune God. 

*Rev. 9: 3. 4. fEph. 1: 1. 13. 14. % Acts 13: 39. Rom, 5: 1, and 8: 1, 1 John 3: P, and 
4; 7, and 5; 1. 4, J3. $Mat. 28; 19, )jSee Mat, 28; 19 io. Greek, (a) § 6. 



56 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

13. By receiving christian baptism, the baptized are recog- 
nized as under covenant obligations to obey him in whose name 
the ordinance is administered to them. VVhen baptism is ad- 
ministered in the name of the Triune God, obedience is re- 
quired (a). This demand is made in every case when chris- 
tian baptism is administered. It is so essential to the ordi- 
nance, that it is included in the very form of words which 
Christ requires to be used when it is administered. The 
justice and propriety of this demand, no believer in Divine 
revelation can doubt. The unbaptized person is under legal 
obligations to obey all the demands of the Divine law. Its 
precepts are " holy, just and good," and therefore ought to 
be obeyed. But in addition to this, the baptized individual 
is recognized as being in a state in which he, actually, or 
virtually and externally, stands bound also in covenant by 
the reception of this ordinance, to obey the Divine require- 
ments. The duties of the baptized are not increased ; but 
by this ordinance they are more firmly bound to obey ; be- 
cause now they are bound by law as others are to do all that 
God requires ; and they, by being recognized as in a state 
which admits the propriety of all God's demands, are also 
bound in covenant to render obedience. Hence by receiv- 
ing baptism in the name of the Trinity, the baptized are ac- 
knowledged as in a covenant state with the christian's God, 
and therefore recognized as under covenant as well as legal 
obligations to obey him. 

14. Christian baptism does not change the state of the bap- 
tized. In whatever light this ordinance is viewed, it cannot, 
by the mere act of receiving it, change the state of the per- 
son baptized. If, before his baptism, he is in a sinful and 
condemned state, he is not delivered from it by this ordi- 
nance, but by the converting power of God's Spirit. It is 
expressly declared that men are "justified by faith"* (£). 
But no passage of God's word contains the least intimation 
that persons are, by water baptism, justified or delivered from 
a state of condemnation. If baptism is viewed as a seal of 
the covenant into which God has entered with his visible 
people ; then it can only be applied to those in this cove- 
nant ; for it is the property of a seal to confirm the promise 

(<%) $ 12. *Rom. 5: 1. (b) $ 1\. 



Ch. 1, § 15.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 57 

made in the covenant. If the baptized are already "justi- 
fied by faith," this ordinance does not, cannot reduce them 
to a state of condemnation. Christian baptism therefore 
does not change the state of the baptized. It supposes a 
covenant relation to exist between God and the person to be 
baptized. The ordinance seals or confirms the promise of 
this covenant. But it does not change the state of the bap- 
tized. 

15. The institution of christian baptism supjioses that all 
the bloody rites were abolished. The Lord Jesus Christ just 
before he suffered, "eat" the " passover." At this time there- 
fore, _it was, as a religious rite, still in force. As such how- 
ever it was to cease, when " Christ our passover" was "sac- 
rificed for us." As the passover was an annual* sacrificial 
feast ; it was impossible for it to be again observed before 
his resurrection, which was to take place on "the third 
day" after his crucifixion. During this short space of time, 
the passover could not be eaten by Divine authority. As 
soon therefore as the last legal passover was observed by 
him ; he instituted the holy supper. But during the time 
Christ was to suffer on the cross and lie under the power of 
death in the tomb ; it might be necessary, in order to obey 
the Divine law,t to circumcise children. Circumcision, 
with the other rites and ceremonies peculiar to Old Testa- 
ment times, would cease to be binding as religious ordinan- 
ces, when their whole design was completely accomplished 
in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. % But before his 
death, it was a positive duty, originating in the Divine com- 
mand, to observe religiously all these precepts. While 
therefore these were in force and men might be called upon 
by the Divine law, to observe them ; New Testament ordi- 
nances were not instituted ; for Christ came not " to destroy 
the law" in any of its parts, " but to fulfill" it in all its de- 
mands.§ Since, while he suffered on the cross and lay in 
the tomb, children might, by the law, be required to be cir- 
cumcised ; he did not therefore institute the ordinance of 
christian baptism at the time or before he instituted the Eu- 
charist ; for then circumcision was in force. But after his 
death "the hand-writing" of these " ordinances" being blot- 

*Ex. 12: 2. 11: 21. 27. and 13: 10. fGen. 17: 12. iSee Col, 2: 14, Epli. 2: 1?. 15-22, 
$Mat. 5: 17. 



58 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

ted out,* baptism might, with propriety, be instituted. And 
instituting it thus as a New Testament ordinance, was a pub- 
lic declaration that the riles peculiar to Old Testament times 
were abolished. But these being abolished, all bloody rites 
must cease as none of these belong to the New Testament 
dispensation of the covenant. The institution of baptism 
therefore supposes that all bloody rites had then ceased to 
sustain the character of religious ordinances. 

16. Christian baptism is not regeneration. To generate 
or beget literally, denotes that natural act which is followed 
by a natural birth ; or it is the procreation of a natural crea- 
ture in addition to those already in existence. To regener- 
ate is to generate or beget again ; or it denotes to re-beget. 
The same person that is once generated or begotten and is 
then born into the world, is often said to be regenerated, re- 
begotten or begotten again. That this regenerating or re- 
begetting is not a repetition of the natural act by whichhe was 
pro-created, is too manifest to need proof. In the word of 
God, regeneration is several times mentioned. To that which 
it signifies the mind is not un frequently directed. Persons 
are said to be "begotten — again;" to be "begotten — through 
the gospel;' 7 to be begotten "of the Father's will,' 7 — " by the 
word of truth ;" ministers of the gospel are mentioned in 
connection with this act as the persons who present the truth 
to the mind of others ; and those who are regenerated are, 
as the result of this act, said to be " born again," — " born — 
of the Spirit," — " born of God."t To be regenerated then 
or to be begotten again, is to have the Spirit of God to op- 
erate in such a way upon the person in the act of regener- 
ating him, that he is born of God the Spirit, and thus made a 
new creature in Christ Jesus. Since regeneration results in 
the Spiritual birth of a Spiritual creature, it must be a Spi- 
ritual act. As natural generation results in the birth of the 
natural man ; so regeneration or Spiritual generation re- 
sults in the Spiritual birth of the new man. Regeneration 
therefore in its literal import, signifies, (1.) That act of the 
Spirit of God, which produces, in the regenerated person, a 
new " nature," — " a new heart," — «* a new spirit," — new 
life, and therefore makes him a " new creature. "| The 

*Col. 2: 14. tl Pet. 1: 3, 1 Cor. 4: 15. .lames 1: IP. John 1: 13, and 3: 3.5, 1 John 3: 
9, and 5: IP. JEph. * 3, Ezek. 36: 20. John 10: 28, i Cor. 5; 17, Gdl. 0: 13. 



Cll. 1, § 16.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 59 

same operation of the Spirit is what truly converts the sin- 
ner or turns him away from the love and practice of sin to 
the love and practice of holiness ; that is, it produces in him 
a love to the principles and practices required in the word 
of God, and a desire to turn away from every invention of 
man, that claims to be a part of the religion of the Lord Je- 
sus Christ. It also, at the same time, implants in the regen- 
erated person, all the graces and affections of the child of 
God. It produces in him the principle of faith, of repen- 
tance, of love to God, of hatred to sin, and gives him desires 
after holiness. These are only a specimen of what is done 
for the sinner who is regenerated by the Spirit of God. (2.) 
The word of truth is the means usually employed by the 
Holy Spirit in regenerating sinners. (3.) The ministers of 
the gospel who preach the word of truth, not those who 
preach falsehood in the name of the Lord, are usually em- 
ployed by the Spirit in presenting the truth to the mind of 
the sinner by which he is truly regenerated. (4.) The truly 
regenerated receive, "believe, love and practice what God in 
his word teaches ; while they turn aside with a degree of 
abhorrence from false doctrines and unscriptural practices 
as parts of their religion. No person truly regenerated by 
the power of the Holy Spirit, can possibly believe that re- 
generation is effected by christian baptism, by whomsoever 
or in what manner soever it may be administered. To say 
that water applied to the body, in any mode or by any per- 
son, regenerates the soul, is a perfect absurdity to the true 
christian. That the Holy Spirit does not always regenerate 
the baptized is manifest from the case of Simon the sorcerer; 
for after "he was baptized," he was still " in the gall of 
bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.' 7 * Every person in 
christian lands knows, from his own observation, that not a 
few baptized persons give no scriptural evidence of being 
regenerated ; for none will say that intoxication, profane 
swearing, card-playing, and such practices, are scriptural 
proofs that those who are guilty of them, are the children of 
God. In these the baptized sometimes engage. This proves 
that they are not truly regenerated. 

This act of the Spirit is called "the washing of regener- 

♦Acts 8: 13. 23. 



60 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

ation," (not the washing of baptism ;) because by it the sin- 
ner is purified from the guilt of his sins. It is called "the 
renewing of the Holy Ghost ;"* because in it, the renewing 
or sanctifying work of the Spirit, is commenced ; and from 
this point it will continue to increase during the believer's 
life on earth. And though this renewing work may some- 
times be interrupted by an attack of his old master, " sin ;" 
yet its progress on the whole is onward till the christian's 
mortal career is terminated in death.f To the true chris- 
tian no truth can be more evident, therefore, than that bap- 
tism with water is not regeneration. Nor indeed can an in- 
telligent man whose soul has not been enlightened by the 
Spirit of God, believe that water applied to the body in bap- 
tism, regenerates the soul ; unless he has become the mere 
slave of superstition. Let any intelligent man reflect on 
the subject untrammeled by superstitious bigotry, and he 
cannot believe that christian baptism administered by a mere 
man, is the regenerating act of the Spirit of God upon the 
soul, by which the sinner is made " a new creature." 

17. Christian baptism is not to be repeated. Christian 
baptism cannot be administered without Divine authority. 
Every attempt to perform a religious act the observance of 
which, God in his word has not required, is mere mockery. 
It is a positive violation of that command which directs men 
to go " to the law and to the testimony "t for instruction in 
all religious duties. It is " teaching for doctrines the com- 
mandments of men." Such '• worship" is " vain." It has 
but a mere "show of wisdom and humility," while it is real- 
ly rank " will-worship."§ Jt is an insult upon the wisdom 
of God. It is not only a practical declaration that his wisdom 
is defective ; but it is also an act by which men declare that 
their own wisdom is superior to that of God. For if his was 
perfect wisdom in their estimation, they would not then de- 
sire to practice any thing for religion, which, in his word, 
he had not required. Moreover if they did not fancy them- 
selves to be wiser than God ; they would not desire to intro- 
duce into his worship that which he had not mentioned as a 
part of the service which he requires of his creatures. 
Without Divine authority then baptism could not be adminis- 

*Tit. 3:5. |See Rom. 6: 20, 22. 23, and 7: 24. +Isa. 8: 20. $Mat. 15: 0, Col, 3:33. 



Ch. 1, § 18.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 61 

tered as a religious ordinance. Without Divine authority 
therefore it cannot be repeated as a part of true religion. 
But God has given no authority in his word, either by pre- 
cept or example, to repeat the ordinance of christian bap- 
tism ; or in other words to baptize a second time, any per- 
son who had already received that ordinance. To attempt 
to do so then would be an act of mere mockery ; a direct 
insult offered to the God of wisdom. Besides, as the regen- 
erating work of the Spirit on the soul, is an act which chris- 
tian baptism signifies (a) and is not, cannot, in the nature 
of things, be repeated, so there would therefore be a man- 
ifest impropriety in repeating its external sign. It is ev- 
ident then that christian baptism cannot be repeated without 
offering a direct insult to the King of the universe. 

The expression "repent and do thy first works.,"* addres- 
sed to the church at Ephesus, does not require its members 
to be re-baptized, This is manifest from the fact that bap- 
tism is not mentioned in the passage or in the connection. 
Besides, the term works never denotes baptism. It is not 
the minister, but the members to whom the direction is giv- 
en. These might be baptized, but they could not administer 
the ordinance to themselves. These "works" could not 
therefore have been baptism. They might have been read- 
ing or hearing the word, prayer, alms-giving, &c. But no 
candid believer in the scriptures would ever suppose that bap- 
tism was called "works." 

18. Though christian baptism is not, the Lord's Supper 
is, to he repeated. In relation to the holy supper, the Spirit 
of God in addressing professing christians, says to them ex- 
pressly, "as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, 
ye do show the Lord's death till he come." In this passage 
of scripture it is stated that christians are "often" to com- 
memorate the death of Christ ; till, at his " second" coming, 
"he shall appear without sin unto salvation. "f The Lord's 
supper then is to be frequently observed by the children oi 
God ; while christian baptism is not to be, indeed cannot be, 
repeated ; because for its repetition, God has given no au- 
thority ; and because an attempt to repeat it is a direct in- 
sult offered to God himself. 

(a) $ 9, par. 1. *Rev. 2: 5. |1 Cor. 11: 26, Heb.9: 28. 



62 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

CHAPTER II. 

DOCTRINE OP BAPTISMS ; ONE BAPTISM ; BAPTISM FOR THE 
DEAD. 

1. The doctrine of baptisms is mentioned as one of the first 
principles of Christianity, A doctrine is a principle taught. 
All doctrines are either true or false. When truth is taught; 
the doctrine is true. When falsehood or a mixture of truth 
and falsehood, is taught; the doctrine is false. " The doc- 
trine of baptisms," is true ; because it is mentioned as one 
of "the first principles of the oracles of God.' 7 * A plural- 
ity of baptisms are here mentioned. The word " baptisms," 
in the plural number, clearly teaches this. In this expres- 
sion more than one baptism is necessarily included. But 
what baptisms are intended, is not so manifest. These may 
be, (1.) The ordinance of christian baptism and Spiritual 
baptism denoting regeneration. These may be intended ; 
as they are among the very first principles of vital godliness 
in the soul, and of external religion in the life. No true 
Spiritual religion can exist in the sinner's heart before he is 
regenerated ; nor can he be recognized as a member of the 
visible church, before he has received the ordinance of chris- 
tian baptism {a). These therefore may be presented as 
among the very first principles of true religion. This view 
of the subject is confirmed by the fact that the " laying on of 
hands' 7 is mentioned in connection with "the doctrine of 
baptisms. 77 By the laying on of the apostle's hands, the 
miraculous gifts of the Spirit were often communicated to 
men.f This being an act accompanied by the Holy Spirit 
and mentioned in connection with the doctrine of baptisms, 
intimates that one of these baptisms may be Spiritual. It 
may also be remarked that the ministerial office was also 
transferred by " laying on 7 ' — " the hands of the presbyte- 
ry.' 7 ! But (2.) this "doctrine, of baptisms' 7 may denote 
what is taught of the different kinds of ceremonial " wash- 
ings' 7 or baptisms,^ mentioned in the word of God, and es- 
pecially in the Old Testament (b). A number of these bap- 
tisms are mentioned. The doctrine or what is taught by 
these, may with propriety be called " the doctrine of bap- 

*Heb. 5: 12, and 6: 2. (a) P. iii, Ch. 3, § 8, par. 4. fSee Acts 8: 17, and 19: 6. J I 
Tim. 4: 14. §Heb. 9: 10 in Greek, (b) P. ii, Ch. 1, § l-l, P, ii, Ch, 2, $ I, 2, P. iii, 
Ch. 1, $ 10. 



Ch. 2, § 2.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 63 

tisms." That all these had ceased to be binding at the death 
of Christ, and no baptism or ceremonial washing, except the 
christian ordinance of baptism, was to be in force after that 
event, was and is, one of the first principles of true religion. 

The "doctrine of baptisms," is therefore an expression 
which may denote (1.) christian and Spiritual baptism, which 
will continue till the end of time; or, (2.) it may signify those 
ceremonial washings which ceased at or before the death of 
Christ ; or, (^3.) it may include all these ; as they are all 
"first principles of the oracles of God. 77 * 

2. The expression, one baptism, is used by the Holy Spirit. 
As the word " baptisms 77 necessarily includes more than one; 
so the phrase " one baptism 77 ! necessarily limits the mind to 
a single baptism. (1.) This expression cannot relate to the 
baptisms administered before the resurrection of Christ be- 
cause these were numerousfaj. This expression (2.) can- 
not teach the doctrine that there is but one mode of baptism, 
or that but one person is to be baptized ; because the word 
mode or person is not used in the sentence or in the connec- 
tion in which the words are used. Nor does any word in 
the passage of which this phrase is a part, express unity of 
mode in baptism ; or that but one person is to be baptized. 
The word " o?ie" does not express mode or person. If the 
word "baptism, 77 in the singular number, expresses "one" 7 
mode of baptism ; then the word u baptisms 77 ^ in the plural 
n amber, must, by the same rule, denote several modes of 
baptism ; for if one baptism signifies one mode of baptism, 
then ten baptisms must denote ten modes of baptism ; be- 
cause, on that principle, every baptism must denote a mode 
of baptism. But, as, in the passage, the mode of baptism is 
not mentioned either directly or indirectly, so those who 
take the word of God for their only rule of duty, will not be 
readily induced to mistake for scripture, the addition of the 
word mode, which men, to sustain a favorite system, may 
please to make to this portion of Divine revelation^J. But 
(3.) the expression "one baptism," teaches that the baptism 
which is intended, is one in its nature ; however various the 
modes of its administration may be. If christian baptism is 
intended, then the language shows that this ordinance is one, 

*Heb. 5: 12. fEph- 4: 5. (a) P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 2. JHeb. 9: 10 in Greek and $ 1. 
(b) See Rule No. 4. 5. 



64 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. IV. 

whether the mode of its administration be one or various. 
If spiritual baptism or regeneration is intended ; then the 
phrase "one baptism," shows that the operation of the Spi- 
rit on the soul in regeneration, is one act of Almighty power, 
however various may be the means employed or the modes 
of this operation. (4.) That this "one" is spiritual "bap- 
tism" or regeneration, may be easily learned from the con- 
nection in which the words are used. In the context " one 
body," — " one Spirit," — "one hope/' — '* one Lord," — "one 
faith," — "one God and Father of all,"* are mentioned. In 
this connection the attention is directed to seven unities. 
Six of them are manifestly spiritual. The " one body' 7 is 
a spiritual, not a literal body; the "Spirit" is the Holy 
Ghost ; the "hope" is an expectation of a spiritual " call- 
ing ;" the " one Lord" is a spiritual sovereign ; the " faith" 
is a spiritual grace ; the "one God" is a spiritual king. As 
all the other unities mentioned in the connection, are spi- 
ritual ; so the "one baptism" must be a spiritual ordinance 
or regeneration, as there is nothing in the language itself 
or in the connection or in parallel passages of scripture to 
require or even authorize a different sense to be given to 
the words in this passage. 

3. Baptism for the dead is mentioned in God's word. The 
language used is this ; " what shall they do which are bap- 
tized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all ? why are they 
then baptized for the dead.' 7 ! On this passage, it may be 
remarked, (1.) That baptism for the dead is mentioned as 
an evidence to prove that a resurrection of the dead shall 
take place. This is evidently the design of the passage, as 
is manifest from the language used and from the connection 
in which it is found. (2.) The expression " baptized for 
the dead" does not teach that one living person may or must 
be baptized as a substitute for or in the room of, one or more 
of the dead. The language used in the passage does not af- 
firm this ; nor could the fact that a living person was bap- 
tized as a substitute for the dead, be an evidence to prove 
that the body will be raised to life again after it has moul- 
dered to dust in the tomb. The word for in the English 
language, does not always, or necessarily, or even frequent- 

*Eph. 4: 4. 5. 6. U Cor. 15: 29. 



Gh. 2, § 3.] BAPTISM WITH WATER. 65 

ly, express substitution ; and when it does, that idea is clear- 
ly determined by the connection in which the word is found. 
The original word (y*sf) in this passage translated jfor, does 
not literally denote substitution. The connection does not 
allow this sense to be given to the word ; and no such a sig- 
nification can be found for it in parallel passages, for no oth- 
er passage in the word of God so much as mentions baptism 
for the dead in any form of expression. That this passage 
of scripture therefore does not teach that a living person may 
or must be baptized as a substitute for the dead, is manifest, 
from the language used in the translation and in the orig- 
inal ; — from the fact that such an act could not prove the 
resurrection of the dead, as this passage does ; — and that to 
baptize a living person as a substitute for the dead, would be 
but a mere farce, as it could be of no possible use to the dead 
or to the living ; — and also that no such sense can be given 
to the language used, in its literal signification, from the 
connection or from a reference to parallel passages. What- 
ever therefore this portion of God ? s word teaches ; it is ev- 
ident that it does not authorize or require a living person to 
be baptized as a substitute for the dead. (3.) If, in the pas- 
sage, it was stated as a positive fact, that the living were 
baptized as substitutes for the dead, that would not prove it 
to be right or authorize others to do so ; because there is not 
a word in the language or in the connection, or in any oth- 
er portion of scripture, which could lead a reflecting mind to 
suppose that God required or approved such an act, or that 
he commanded, authorized or even permitted others to make 
it an example for their imitation (a). Men have no right to 
take that for an example which God has not made such. To 
do so would be substituting their own wisdom for his. It 
would be forsaking " the fountain of living waters," for their 
own "broken cisterns.' 7 * (4.) The expression " baptized 
for the dead" may or does teach, that the living who were 
baptized for the sake of obeying the command of a Saviour 
who had died and rose again, proved by this act to all to 
whom it was known, that they had evidence in their own 
mind sufficiently powerful to convince them that the doc- 
trine of a resurrection from the dead was true. Without 

(a) P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 10. *Jer. 2: 13. 

5 



66 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. V. 

such evidence, clear and conclusive, they would not, in the 
face of danger and of death, have been baptized in his name. 
The Greek word (vsx^wv) translated "dead," is in the plu- 
ral number. This form of the word may be the intensitive 
plural, used to intimate the dignity of Christ, the Person 
mentioned. (5.) The original word (W^) translated for, 
literally signifies above.* The expression therefore, " bap- 
tized for, 7 ' or above " the dead," may signify that living 
persons had such clear and undeniable evidence of " the re- 
surrection at the last day,"f that they would willingly re- 
ceive the ordinance of christian baptism and thus profess 
their faith in Christ, over the very dead bodies of those who 
had received the martyrs crown, and to whom the iron heart 
of cruelty had denied the privilege of being laid in the grave. 
f6.) As the original expression may embrace both these 
ideas ; the Holy Spirit may, by using this language, have in- 
tended to leave on the readers mind, both these impressions, 
ft appears then that the expression " baptized for the dead," 
does not, cannot signify that the living may or must be bap- 
tized as a substitute for the dead ; but that it may and does 
teach the careful reader of God's word, that those who have, 
for thousands of years, been held in the cold embrace of 
death, will, at the last day, all spring again into life, by the 
vivifying power of Almighty God. 

PART FIFTH. 

BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 

CHAPTER I. 

BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST. 

t. In the Scriptures, baptism with the Holy Ghost, is 
taught. This is proved, (1.) From the fact that this is the 
very language used by the Holy Spirit on this subject. "He 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost," is the language of 
the scriptures and it is often repeated ; again, it is said of 
Christ ; " He — baptizeth with the Holy Ghost ;" and yet 
again ; "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. "J This 
language expressly shows that baptism with the Holy Ghost 

*See 1 Cor. 15: 29 in Greek. fJohn 11: 2-1. {Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16, John 
1: 33, Acts 1: 5. 



Ch. 1, § 2.] BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 67 

is a truth taught in the word of God. (2.) Many synony- 
mous expressions teach the same truth. Some of these may 
be noticed. One is, "I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh ;' 7 another is, " The Holy Ghost fell on 77 Cornelius and 
those with him ; another, " On the Gentiles — was poured 
out the gift of the Holy Ghost ; 77 and yet another is, " The 
Holy Ghost came on 77# those who were re-baptized by the 
direction of Paul. Other instances might be mentioned ; 
but these are sufficient to show those who will take the lan- 
guage of scripture for proof, that baptism with the Holy Spi- 
rit is positively taught in the word of God. 

2. Baptism with the Holy Ghost is extraordinary and or* 
dinary. It is (1.) Extraordinary or miraculous. In the 
case of the Apostles the miraculous power which it expres- 
sed, was of a peculiar kind. When they were first sent to 
preach to the Jews only ; they were empowered to work 
miracles.t Our Saviour after his resurrection directed the 
eleven to "tarry — in the city of Jerusalem, until" they 
should " be endued with power from on high. 7 'f A short time 
before he ascended to Heaven, he said to them ; " ye shall 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. 77 § 
About ten days after this, they were enabled miraculously, 
to speak sixteen or seventeen different languages or dialects. 
This took place on " the day of Pentecost." Then they 
were " baptized with the Holy Ghost/ 7 — "the Holy Ghost 77 
came "upon 77 them, or was poured "out 77 on them^j In 
their case therefore to be " baptized with the Holy Ghost, 77 
was to have the gift of speaking different languages confer- 
red on them by the supernatural power of the Spirit of God. 
Others also upon whom the Holy Ghost "was poured out 77 — 
spoke "with to.ngues. 77 f[ It appears therefore that to be 
baptized miraculously with the Holy Ghost, is to be super- 
naturally enabled to speak different languages. (2.) Bap- 
tism with the Holy Ghost may denote the ordinary regene- 
rating power of the Spirit, by which a sinner is made a new 
creature. This appears to be at least included in the decla- 
ration made on this subject by J&hn to those whom he bap- 
tized. He said to them as a body ; " he shall baptize you 

* Joel 2: 28, Acts 2: 17, and 10: 44.45, and 19: 6. tSee Mat. 10: 8, Luke 9: 1.2.6. 
jLuke 24: 49. §Acts 1: 4. 5. 8. ||Acts 1: 5. 8, and 2: 1-17. IT Acts 10: 45. 46, and 11; 
15-17. 



68 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. I, P. V, 

with the Holy Ghost."* The word of God affords no evi- 
dence that most, or even a considerable number, of those 
whom John baptized, were enabled to work miracles or to 
speak with tongues. But, as, in the exprassion, " all the 
people — justified God, being baptized with the bnptism of 
John,"t we find proof that many of them experienced the 
regenerating grace of God ; so it is evident that in the 
case of many of them, to be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost, was to be regenerated by the power of the Spirit 
of God. By being baptized with this spiritual baptism, 
they were made heirs of God ; but were not enabled to work 
miracles or to speak with new tongues. This kind of spi- 
ritual baptism is experienced by every true believer in the 
Lord Jesus Christ ; while miraculous powers were confined 
to but few and these not all known as the children of God. £ 
From these remarks it maybe easily concluded that baptism 
with the Holy Ghost is both extraordinary or miraculous, 
and ordinary, such as all true christians experience when 
they are actually adopted into the family of God. 

3. Jesus Christ baptized with the Holy Ghost. Speaking 
of him to the Jews, John the Baptist positively and repeat- 
edly declares " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost."* 
From this and similar language it is undeniably certain, that 
to baptize with the Spirit, is not the work of mere man, but 
of the Divine Redeemer. The converting, as well as the 
miraculous work of the Holy Ghost, was therefore a part of 
what the Great Shepherd purchased for his sheep. § To 
some whom he baptized with the Holy Ghost, he gave mi- 
raculous powers ; to others he gave only converting grace, 
sanctifying power and eternal gloiy, with whatever is ne- 
cessary to make an enemy of God his true friend. 

4. Upon those baptized with the Spirit, he, in his influen- 
ces, descended. Of such, it is said ; the Spirit was poured 
"out" or "fell on them. ;? j| This, with much similar lan- 
guage which is used in relation to baptism with the Holy 
Ghost, shows that when persons were thus baptized, the in- 
fluences of the Spirit descended or came upon them. This 
is manifest. Indeed, nothing can be more evident than, that 

*Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16. fUke 7: 29. JSee Mat. 7: 22. 23, and 12: 17, 
S Thess. 2: 9. 10, Deut. 13: 1-5, Num. 24: 17-19 compared with 2 Pet. 2: 15. 16. §Se» 
1 Cor. 6: 20, and 7: 23, John 10: 11; 14. 17. 18. [|See Acts 2: 17, and 10: 44. 45 and 11: 15. 



Ch. 2, § 1—3.] BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 69 

when the Spirit is " poured out" on men and falls on them 
or enters them so that they are " filled"* with it, they are 
not, at the same time, put all over into the Spirit. From the 
language of God's word then it is manifest that the Spirit in 
his influences descends or comes upon those who are bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost. (a). 

5. When the Apostles were baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
there was an external appearance. This was that of "cloven 
tongues like as of fire." It " sat upon each of them."f The 
word it stands for the fire, or rather the fiery appearance 
which remained for a time on each of the disciples. The 
appearance of " cloven tongues" resembling fire, resting on 
each of them, as the Holy Ghost was baptizing them, may 
indicate that then each of them was about to be enabled to 
speak with new tongues. These were " cloven" or divided. 
This might indicate to them that they were soon to be sent 
to different parts of the then known world to use their mira* 
culously acquired power of speaking different languages, in 
publishing the gospel of salvation. But whatever might have 
been the design of God in causing this visible appearance at 
the time the Holy Ghost was baptizing them; the fact that 
such an appearance existed, is certain. 



CHAPTER II. 

BAPTISM WITH FIRE. 

1. Baptism with fire is taught in the word of God. The 
language of scripture on this subject is very definite. Bap- 
tism "with fire"| is twice explicitly mentioned. The fact 
that baptism "with fire" is taught in the word of God, must 
then be manifest to every person who will read its language. 

2. Jesus Christ baptizes with fire. Of him it is said to 
the Jews ; " He shall baptize you — with fire."f That the 
Lord Jesus Christ baptizes with fire is here taught in lan- 
guage too plain to be disputed by any who can believe the 
evidence of their senses. 

3. To baptize with fire is forcible language. Literal fire 
either purifies or consumes material substances. To bap- 
tize with fire then may indicate that those who receive this 

*AcU 2; 4, and 10: 47. (a)§ 2. fActs 2: 3. JMat. 3: 11, Luke 3: 16. 



?0 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. V* 

baptism, are either by it to be purified or consumed. Christ 
baptizes his people with fire, when he purifies them "in the 
furnace of affliction ;"* or when he sanctifies them by the 
operations of his Spirit in their souls ;t or when he uses 
both these for the purpose of making them more and more 
holy. When both are used for this purpose, afflictions are 
the means, and the Spirit the efficient operator by which 
the means are made effectual in sanctifying the soul. He 
baptizes his enemies with fire when he sends upon them 
fearful temporal calamities, or the horrors of an awakened 
or of a seared conscience ; and especially when he consigns 
their immortal souls to the gnawings of the " worm" that 
never dies, and to the dark dismal flames of that fire which 
shall not be "quenched."! 

4. This baptism usually manifests itself by its effects. That 
afflictions are generally manifested by their effects, all can 
perceive. When baptism with fire denotes sanctification ; 
it manifests itself by leading those who enjoy its purifying 
influence to become more and more conformed to the word 
of God, in principle and in practice. When " God," to the 
sinner out of Christ becomes "a consuming fire,"§ his har- 
dened heart, his seared conscience, his careless rebellion 
against Heaven, his adoption of unscriptural principles and 
practices for religion, his hatred of Divine truth, proclaim 
the fact to all who will hear ; and in the world of woe, his 
"weeping 57 — and'* wailing" and " gnashing of teeth"|| can- 
not be concealed. It will be evident therefore to the observ- 
ing mind that baptism with fire is usually, if not universally, 
manifested in its external effects. 



CHAPTER III. 

BAPTISM WITH SUFFERINGS. 

I. This baptism is taught in the scriptures. Our Saviour 
after describing his sufferings and death by cru lifixion, calls 
them " the cup that" he should "drink of," and "the bap- 
tism that" he, at that time, was, and was soon more man- 

*Isa. 48: 10. fSee Ex. 31: 13, Rom. 15: 16, 1 Thes. 5: 23. JSec Isa. 06: 24, Jude:13, 
Mark 9: 43-43. §Heb. 12: 29. || Mat. 8: 12, and 13: 42. 50, and 23: 13, and 24: SI, 
and 25: 30, Luke 13: 28. 



Ch. 3, § 2-5.] BAPTISM WITHOUT WATER. 71 

ifestly, to be " baptized with. "* In addressing James and 
John, he says ; " Are ye able — to be baptized with the bap- 
tism that I am baptized with V This shows that at the ve- 
ry time he was speaking, he was receiving this baptism ; 
and that at that time it was not yet completed, appears when 
he says of it ; "I have a baptism to be baptized with ; and 
how am I straitened till it be accomplished ?"f That bap- 
tism which, when he addressed James and John, he was ac- 
tually receiving, and which was not then completed, could 
be no other than the baptism of suffering. It could not be 
that which John the Baptist administered ; because that was 
completed long before this time. It is therefore evident that 
the baptism mentioned in these portions of God's word, is 
baptism with sufferings. 

2. Jesus Christ received this baptism. He declares ex- 
pressly " I am baptized with" this baptism ; and " I have a 
baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitened till it 
be accomplished f"$ This he says in relation to his bap- 
tism with sufferings (a). 

3. The Apostles, James and John, were to be, and were 
baptized with sufferi?igs. That they were to be thus bapti- 
zed is positively stated. Christ said to them ; "Ye shall — be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with."§ That 
they were thus baptized, is certain; for Herod killed "James — 
with the sword ;" and " John — was" banished to " the isle" 
of " Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of 
Jesus Christ."|j These two disciples then received the bap- 
tism of sufferings according to Christ's prediction. 

4. The martyrs were baptized with sufferings. Many of 
these have suffered death with " fire, with the sword," with 
various kinds of torture, with scourging, with " imprison- 
ment," with being u sawn asunder," with wandering " in 
deserts,- — in mountains and in dens and caves of the earth. "ft 
More than fifty millions of the professed followers of the 
Lor I Jesus Christ have suffered death by the unrelenting 
Hand of persecution, These, like their blessed Master, were 
severely baptized with sufferings. 

5. All true christians receive this baptism in a greater or 
less degree. Jesus Christ says to all his disciples; " In the 

*Mat. 20: 17-22, Mark 10: 32-38. fLuke i2 : 50. JMat. 20: 22. Mark 10: 38, Luke 
12:50. (a)§h $ Mat, 20; 23, Mark 10; 39. Ij Acts 12; 2, Be*. Is ft UHeb, 11: 34-38. 



72 BIBLE BAPTISM. [B. I, P. VI, 

world ye shall have tribulation ; 77 and again, the same truth 
is stated in this language; " All that will live godly in 
Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.' 7 * All such persons 
shall be baptized with suffering. The distress of some will 
be exceedingly great ; that of others only like a drop from 
the ocean. But as a general rule, the more holy and devo- 
ted the christian is, the more persecution he will in this life 
be called to endure. The more he conforms to the word of 
God in principle and in practice, — the more he resembles in 
heart and life the great Redeemer ; the more will the en- 
emies of God hate and persecute him. Those who profess 
to be christians, while they hate God and the truths of his 
word, will generally be most bitter and unprincipled in their 
persecuting attacks upon his children. Indeed, persecutors 
may be so blinded with sin that, while they are killing the 
disciples of Christ, they may imagine, they are doing "God 
service?"! But all true christians must expect to "suffer 
persecution. 77 In whatever way their enemies persecute 
them, or by whatever means they may attempt to justify 
their wickedness ; one truth is undeniably certain ; all who, 
in this life, truly love God, will find the world a " vale of 
tears. 77 They will all be baptized with sufferings. 

PART SIXTH. 

BAPTISM WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY. 

CHAPTER I. 

BAPTISM WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY BEFORE CHRIST r 8 
RESURRECTION. 

1. Hie ordinary self- baptism of the Jews was unauthorized 
by Divine wisdom. The fact that they did frequently bap- 
tize themselves, is positively stated in this language ; "when 
they come from the market, except they wash 77 or(/3a<7r<ritfwv<raj) 
baptize, as it is expressed in the original, " they eat not. 77 
In the practice of these their ceremonial washings or bap- 
tisms ; our Saviour charges them with laying " aside the 
commandment of God 77 and observing »• the tradition of 
men. 77 ! Moreover, it is said on a certain occasion, that a 
Pharisee " marvelled' 7 because the blessed Redeemer " sat 

♦John 16: 33, 2 Tim. 3; 12, j John 16: 2. {Mark 7: 4- 8 in Greek. 



Ch. 1,§ 2, 3.] BAP. WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY. 73 

down to meat" before "he had — first washed,"* or^/Scwno^) 
baptized. The fact that the Pharisee "marvelled" because 
Christ did not wash or baptize before dinner, shows that the 
custom of doing so, was very general if not universal among 
the Jews ; and the fact that he did not wash or baptize be- 
fore he " sat down," proves that such ceremonial washings 
were not of Divine appointment. The Lord Jesus Christ 
therefore, both in words and actions condemns those wash- 
ings or baptisms which the Jews practiced without Divine 
authority. 

2. The baptism by the Jews of various domestic articles 
was not required by the law of God. When they, under the 
direction of the Pharisees, turned aside from the Divine rule 
laid down in the scriptures ; they received from them vari- 
ous traditions. Among these they had adopted, as a reli- 
gious rite, "the washing" or ((3arfn<fiJ.ovg) baptizing "of 
cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables," or (xXivwv) 
couches.f Though some of these, under certain circum- 
stances, might, by the Divine law, be ceremonially purified 
with " water" (#).| Yet the Jews had no authority to wash 
or baptize them when they returned from market. Our Sa- 
viour therefore charges them with laying "aside the com- 
mandment of God" and adopting " the tradition of men,"t 
when they baptized or ceremonially washed these articles 
without Divine authority. In relation to these and " many 
other such like things," which they had invented and prac- 
ticed as portions of religious service, our Saviour says ; "in 
vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
mandments of men."§ The washing or baptizing of these 
domestic articles was a mere act of will-worship. It was in 
fact an insult offered to the God of wisdom ; as are all hu- 
man inventions introduced into religious worship 

3. God did not authorize the Jews to baptize proselytes. 
The fact that they did baptize them is not explicitly stated 
in the word of God. Indeed, concerning their baptism, no- 
thing is said in the" scriptures. The copy of Josephus ex- 
amined on this subject, does not intimate that the Jews bap- 
tized proselytes. But notwithstanding this, the fact that 
they did baptize, as well as circumcise, proselytes, is sus- 

*Luke 11: 37. 35 in Greek. fMark 7: 4. in Greek, (a) P. ii, Ch. 2, § 3. {Lev. 6-. 
28, and 11: 32, and 15: 12. §Mark 7: 8, Mat. 15: 9. 



74 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VI. 

tained by unanswerable evidence (a). That they had no 
Divine authority for doing so, is manifest, (1.) From the 
fact that, in the word of God, no authority is given for such 
a practice. (2.) This practice maybe condemned in the 
expression of disapprobation used by our Saviour to the 
Jews, when he says ; they had " many other" unauthorized 
washings or baptisms, besides those which he had definitely 
mentioned.* (3.) The passage of scripture upon the au- 
thority of which they profess to act when they baptize pros- 
elytes, does not so much as mention or even allude to the 
baptism of persons with water. The passage is this ; *'And 
the Lord said unto Moses, go unto the people, and sanctify 
them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes."t 
(4.) This direction was given more than four hundred years 
after circumcision was instituted. It could not therefore 
have with it, any necessary connection. (5.) But if it had, 
the language does not express baptism with water. To 
sanctify does not necessarily denote to apply water to the 
person in baptism : to " wash" — "clothes" does not signify 
to baptize or wash the person. (6.) Besides, this direction 
is given to the Jews themselves on a particular occasion and 
for a particular purpose. It was not an established ordi- 
nance for perpetual observance even among the Jews, much 
less was it applicable to the Gentiles who might desire to 
embrace the religion of Israel ; and least of all, did it re- 
quire these last to be baptized as well as circumcised when 
they were received by the Jews as proselytes to their reli- 
gion. The baptism therefore of proselytes by the Jews was 
unauthorized by Divine wisdom. 



CHAPTER II. 

BAPTISM WITHOUT DIVINE AUTr ITY AFTER CHRIST^ RESUR- 
RECixOiV. 

1. Baptism adn ered by laymen is without Div'ne au- 
thority. Sometimes mere laymen or those who do not sus- 
tain the office of christian ministers, perform the act Of bap- 
fa; See Ter. on Bap. c. 5; Cyp. Epistle 73 to Jabianus, Greg. Naz. Orat. 39, Basil 
Oral, on Bap. Mish. and Gama. of the Jeru. and Bab. Talm. Rab. Sol. on Ex. ]9: 10, 
Maimonides, Clarke, Lightfoot, Seldon, Hammond, Wall, Henry, on Mark 1: 1-8, 
Claude, Fleury, &c. *Mark 7: 4, f£x. 19: 10. 



Ch. 2, § 2, 3.] BAP. WITHOUT DIVINE AUTHORITY. 75 

tizing persons. This is only a solemn farce. The Lord 
Jesus Christ gives to his ministering servants, and to no oth- 
ers, the authority to administer baptism.* None but such 
can therefore administer this holy ordinance. For others 
to attempt to administer it, is solemn mockery, is practical 
blasphemy, since by such an act, a man assumes the pre- 
rogatives of a Divine person, for he acts in this matter as if 
he were independent of God. 

2. Females have no Divine authority to administer bap- 
tism. Among Romanists, females, under certain circum- 
stances, are allowed, if not required, by their regulations, to 
administer baptism. But the word of God does not give 
them any such authority. In giving the New Testament 
commission to his disciples and to their successors in the 
ministerial office, by which they were empowered to preach 
the gospel and administer the christian sacraments, Jesus 
Christ did not authorize females to baptize. The apostles 
and their official successors were not directed to transmit 
this office to females, but to " faithful men who" should "be 
able to teach others. 7 'f Since therefore, in the scriptures, 
females have no authority given them to preach or baptize; 
whenever they attempt to do either, they are engaged in 
practical rebellion against God. 

3. Christian baptism cannot be administered except in the 
name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Sabians of Sy- 
ria, some Arians and a few others, apply water in what they 
call baptism, without using the name of Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost. These Sabians, or " Daily Baptists, 77 as they 
call themselves, use a form in their baptismal ceremony 
which, when translated, reads thus ; " / baptize thee with 
the baptism with which John the Baptist baptized''' (a). They 
call this ceremony " the baptism of Light." Some Arians 
apply water simply in the name of God, without using the 
name of the Trinity. Some others, it is understood, use 
this or a similar form ; " I baptize, or I immerse thee in or 
into the church of Christ. 77 All baptisms administered by 
using these or any similar forms of human invention, are 
totally destitute of Divine authority; as such forms are not 
mentioned in the scriptures. Besides, when Christ com- 

*See Mat. 28: 19. fSee Mat. 28: 19, 2 Tim. 2: 2. 24. (a) See Micha. on N. T. vol. 
III. Pt. 1, Taylor, pages 84. 85. 



76 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. i, p. V II. 

mands his disciples to baptize, he directs them to use a dif- 
ferent form It may also be observed, that in some portions 
of the Greek church, what they call baptism is administer- 
ed not by a minister, but by the god-father of the baptized, 
without using any form of words («). 

To attempt to administer baptism without Divine author- 
ity, is treating the Great Head of the church with contempt 
It is, by those who do so, a practical declaration that they 
have as good authority as he had, to say who may baptize, 
and what form is to be used ; and by practioing on their own 
plan, they declare it to be superior to his. The sin of such 
a system must be great in the sight of the King of Zion. 
Can a true christian be guilty of thus habitually insulting 
his crucified Redeemer ? 



PART SEVENTH. 

MODES OF BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE VARIOUS MODES OF BAPTISM MENTIONED. 

1. The word mode ought to he understood. The mode of 
doing a thing denotes the particular manner in which it is 
performed. It is evident to any reflecting mind that the 
same thing may be performed in a variety of different ways 
or modes. A man may be killed with a dirk, with a pistol, 
with poison or with a sword. The same crime may be per- 
petrated in these and a thousand other modes. Indeed the 
mode or manner of performing an action, whether in the 
discharge of a duty or in the commission of a crime, is never 
essential to the action, unless the command requiring or for- 
bidding its performance, specifies or includes the mode. The 
command, « thou shalt not kill," prohibits murder in what 
mode soever it may be perpetrated. But the command, 
"thou shalt not kill" with a dirk, forbids the crime to be 
committed in one particular mode and in no other. If God 
commands an action to be done or a duty to be performed, 
without specifying in what mode or manner it is to be done, 

(*) See Hist, of the Georgian and Mingrelian churches, Eel. Cer, and Cn«. p. 221. ' 



Ch. 1, § 2-4.] MODES OF BAPTISM. 77 

then it is manifest that the action or duty may be attended 
to in any mode. But if God requires a duty to be perform- 
ed in a particular manner and in no other, then attempting 
to perform it in any other mode is simply rebellion against 
his command. If he requires a duty to be performed, and 
does not specify the mode, men have no right to do so. If 
the mode or manner of doing an action is, by Divine autho- 
rity, made essential to the performance of it ; then to attempt 
to do it in any other way, is an insult upon the wisdom of 
God. It is a virtual attempt to correct Omniscience. If 
God has required baptism to be administered in one particu- 
lar mode and in no other ; then he has mentioned this in his 
word in definite language. If he has not so mentioned it. 
then we know that he makes no such requirement of his 
creatures. To say tha*t God teaches men to baptize in a 
particular mode of which he says nothing, is to affirm that 
he teaches what he does not teach ; or in other words ; to 
make such a statement would be to utter a positive untruth. 
It is certain then that in investigating the subject of baptism, 
the term mode ought to be understood. 

2. To sprinkle is an expression easily understood. It sig- 
nifies to cause a fluid to fall in drops. When it is used to 
denote the application of water in connection with baptism ; 
it signifies to cause water to fall in drops on the forehead or 
upper part of the face, of the person to whom the element 
is applied. But to sprinkle is an expression too plain to 
need farther illustration. 

3. Water is sometimes poured upon persons for baptism. 
To pour signifies to cause a small quantity of a fluid to flow 
down upon some object. A person is said to be poured in 
baptism, when a small quantity of water is poured on his 
head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. In 
the word of God, to pour signifies to fall in drops as a shower 
of rain descends. When it is said ; "the clouds poured out 
water;"* the expression shows that a shower of rain fell 
in drops. In the scripture sense of the word therefore, 
pour does not materially differ in its meaning from the word 
sprinkle. They both denote to fall in drops. 

4. Men often say that immersion is baptism. When it is 



78 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. I, P. VII. 

used as a substitute for baptism, it expresses a very complex 
action. With those who immerse adults and no others ; the 
action which they express by it, is eight-fold. In immer- 
sion, after adjusting their dress, they (1.) repair to some 
river, pond, brook or cistern ; (2.) the person to be immer- 
sed wades into the water nearly or quite up to the waist ; 
(3.) the administrator takes both the hands of the person to 
be immersed into one of his and places the other between 
the shoulders of the subject who, at this stage of the opera- 
tion, sometimes stands and sometimes kneels ; but when he 
kneels he generally chooses more shallow water than when 
he stands; (4.) the administrator puts that portion of the 
person which is yet above water, entirely under its surface, 
by laying him down on his face or on his back, so that the 
external garments of the person, if he is dressed, is usually 
for a moment under the water; (5.) he immediately raises 
the person up again ; (6.) the subject wades out of the wa- 
ter ; (7.) he then leaves the stream, pond, or cistern ; (8.) 
he changes his dress, substituting dry for wet garments ; un- 
less he had performed the operation in a state of nudity. 
When immersion is practiced for baptism, two of these ac- 
tions are always and necessarily included in the significa- 
tion of the word. These are the fourth and fifth. The parts 
of the body which are yet above, are, by the administrator, 
put entirely under the surface of the water, and then imme- 
diately raised up again. When a person is immersed, the 
body must be entirely under water. If he was left in this 
state, the action certainly would not be complete. If he was 
left entirely under water, his natural life must, in a very 
few minutes, be destroyed. Few, even of those most in fa- 
vor of a " watery grave,' 7 would be willing to remain many 
minutes totally covered with water. If they were thus left ; 
indeed, if they were not very soon raised from beneath the 
surface of that element ; nothing but a miracle could save 
them from almost instant death. As therefore to put a per- 
son entirely under water and leave him there, would be one 
mode of killing him ; no immerser who is not in favor of 
destroying life, will affirm that the whole action of immer- 
sion as a substitute for baptism, ends when the person is 
completely covered with water. To be immersed therefore 



Ch. 1, § 4.] MODES OF BAPTISM. 79 

for baptism, is to be put entirely under water and taken out 
again ; a part at least of which acts must be performed by 
the administrator. 

Those who immerse infants exclusively or nearly so(a), 
besides a great variety of ridiculous ceremonies, usually put 
the child entirely under water. The fluid is usually warm- 
ed a little. The child is frequently put under the water by 
a minister. It is thus immersed three times. He sometimes 
uses the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and some- 
times he does not. Indeed sometimes the god-father of the 
infant immerses it three times without using any form of 
words whatever(a). 

Some immersers immerse only a part of their communi- 
cants. Some do not view immersion as the only mode of 
baptism and some do. Some of them will admit unbaptized 
persons to partake with them of the Lord's Supper. Some 
will, and some will not, immerse infants. Some put on an 
over-dress when they are immersed, lest their bodies should 
be entirely wet with water. But in western Europe and in 
America, immersers usually immerse adults only. These, 
while in the operation, are in modern times, generally, if 
not universally, dressed in some kind of garments. 

For a person to be entirely covered with air, or fog, or 
smoke, or sand, is not to be immersed. If that were the 
case, then every person is constantly immersed ; as each in- 
dividual of the human race, is, while living, entirely cover- 
ed with air, and often with smoke and fog. If a person 
should be entirely covered with sand ; not many immersers 
would suppose that he, on that account, was properly bap- 
tized. It is undeniable, then that to be immersed is to be 
covered entirely with water, and not with any other mate- 
rial. 

It generally appears like a voluntary act on the part of 
the immersed when they are grown to years of manhood. 
But it seldom is so in reality ; because very few of them ex- 
amine the subject and compare it with the word of God be- 
fore they are immersed. They therefore act under the gui- 
dance of those to whom they submit themselves as their lead- 
ers. If they ever examine the scriptures in relation to the 

(a) See Rel. Cer. and Cus. Art. Greek Church p. 182. 211. 221. 233. 237, 242, Hart- 
ford Ed. 1836. 



80 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. T, P. VII. 

matter; it is to find something to justify them in what they 
have already done ; not to ascertain what God the Lord 
teaches them to do. 



CHAPTER K. 

THE POINT TO BE EXAMINED STATED. 

1. It is important to know the point in dispute. If this is 
not known and definitely fixed, the mind is in constant dan- 
ger of wandering from it, or of being led away from it by 
those who have more cunning than honesty. But when the 
point to be examined is clearly perceived and well under- 
stood ; then the connection of an argument with it will be 
perceived ; and the fallacy of sophistry will more readily be 
discovered. Truth never shuns the point ; falsehood al- 
ways does. If a position is true, the more evident it is, the 
brighter it will shine ; and if it is false, the more easily will 
it be detected by having the point clearly stated. It is then, 
in all subjects of dispute, a matter of great importance to 
have a clear view of the exact point to be examined. With- 
out this, little can be done to ascertain the validity of the 
claims of immersion to be the only mode of baptism. 

2. What the point is not, deserves attention. The point 
to be decided is, not (1.) Whether baptism with water is or 
is not a duty. That it is, both parties admit ; (2.) Not 
whether immersion is a mode of baptism or not : (3.) Not 
whether immersion or another mode is more or less conve- 
nient ; (4.) Not whether it is more or less desirable or sol- 
emn than another mode ; (5.) Not whether it is or is not a 
cross ; (6.) Not whether it is shame or pride or fear or the 
influence of others, that leads persons to choose or refuse to 
be immersed ; (7.) Not whether many or few adopt this or 
another mode ; (8.) Not whether men sanction or disap- 
prove one mode of baptism or another ; (9.) Not whether 
immersers are good men or bad ; wise or unwise. Whether 
these matters are important or otherwise, they form in fact 
no part of the subject of discussion between those who do, 
and those who do not, maintain that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. 



Gh. % % 8-5.] MODES OF BAPTISM. 81 

3, The point to be settled is this. Is immersion the only 
mode of baptism '£ Men often declare that immersion and 
that only is baptism. They say that it is so essential to the 
ordinance, that without it, baptism cannot exist ; and that 
those and those only who are immersed are baptized. The 
evidence in favor of this exclusive claim, is the point to be 
investigated. 

4. This point has two parts. The position laid down by 
the exclusives on this subject, is, that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism ; or in other language, they say, that im- 
mersion and that only is baptism. When it is said that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism, a twofold declaration 
is made. It is affirmed, (1.) That immersion is baptism or a 
mode of baptism ; and (2.) That it is the only mode of bap- 
tism ; or that immersion and nothing else, is baptism. Both 
these ideas are manifestly included in the assertion that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; because, as the same 
thing may be done in different ways or modes (a), so bap- 
tism may be performed in different modes unless God re- 
quires it to be administered in some one particular mode and 
in no other. In the examination therefore of this subject, it 
is necessary, (1.) To see whether the word of God definitely 
teaches that immersion is a mode oj "baptism ; and (2.) See 
whether it informs us that immersion is the only mode in 
which that ordinance can be administered. If either or both 
these positions are true, then we have definite evidence to 
sustain such truth in the word of God. 

5. Exclusive claims must be sustained by positive evidence. 
When a man affirms that immersion is the only mode of bap- 
tism ; to prove his statement he ought to show at least one 
passage of scripture which positively states that immersion 
is baptism ; or he ought to show a passage which declares 
that some one person was baptized by immersion. He should 
then point to a portion of God's word, which states that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; or that there is no oth- 
er mode or only one mode of baptism. If he fails to do this; 
his exclusive claim stands unsupported by proper evidence. 
It is a mere proofless assertion. He who makes exclusive 
claims, must not expect, among persons of reflection, to sus- 

(a) Ch.l, $1. 

6 



82 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

tain them by positive assertions or by asking questions. He 
must expect that persons of sense, will call upon him to pre- 
sent plain, positive, pointed evidence to sustain his dogmat- 
ical assertions; and if he is unable to do this ; he must not 
be surprized if he finds himself ranked among mere dema- 
gogues. To suppose that an exclusive claim may be sus- 
tained without positive testimony, is an insult offered to the 
good common sense of mankind. When a man makes a 
positive assertion of any kind ; it is but right that he should 
sustain it by proper evidence ; much more should this be 
demanded of him who makes an exclusive claim. Those 
therefore who affirm that immersion is the only mode of bap- 
tism, ought to have something more than an assertion and a 
question to prove their position. They must bring a "thus 
saith the Lord" for it, if they would fairly convince intelli- 
gent men that their claim is supported by the word of God. 
When a man makes a positive assertion which includes 
an exclusive claim, and then undertakes to sustain it by 
conjecture or saying, it may be so, or there is no proof of 
something else, or by saying it must be so, or by asking why 
such a thing was done if it was not so ; he either knows very 
little concerning the nature of evidence or supposes his hear- 
ers know but little on that subject. In a word, such a step 
would seem to intimate that he had either very little know- 
ledge or very little honesty. 



BOOK SECOND— IMMERSION EXAMINED. 
PART FIRST. 

IMMERSION SOUGHT FROM THE WORD OP GOD. 

CHAPTER I. 

IN THE SCRIPTURES PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE IM- 
MERSED. 

1. God, in his mord > does not command persons to be im- 
mersed. In no portion of the scriptures is it said to any per^ 
son, for any purpose ; Be immersed ; or ye shall be immer- 
sed ; or thou shalt be immersed. There is therefore no com- 
mand in the word of God given in any form of language, 



Ch. 1, § 2-6.] IMMERSION NOT REQUIRED. 83 

requiring any person to be immersed for any purpose what- 
ever. 

2. God does not require any person to immerse others. He 
does not direct any of his ministering servants or any indi- 
vidual of the human race, to immerse others. He does not, 
in any passage of his word, say to any ; go ye and immerse ; 
nor does he in any form of words command them to immerse 
any one person or more. No person can find in God's word 
any such direction ; for this plain reason ; none such is re- 
corded in that Holy book. God, therefore, does not in his 
word, command any person to immerse others.. 

3. God does not direct persons to be baptized by immersion 
or to baptize others in this mode. New Testament ministers 
are commanded to " Go — and teach all nations, baptizing 
them. 77 * But they are not told to. administer this ordinance 
by immersion. In no portion of the book of God, are men 
directed or authorized by any requirement, to baptize by im- 
mersion. Persons are commandedto.be <-' baptized, 77 ! but 
not a word is said in such directions to them concerning the 
mode in which baptism is to be administered. Nor are they 
in any other passage directed to be baptized by immersion. 

4. No person speaking of himself or others, is, in the scrip-, 
lures, represented as saying I or they immerse or baptize or 
were baptized by immersion. John said, " I baptize ; 77 — and 
Paul, "I baptized; 77 — and another sacred writer; "men 
and women* 7 were baptized.i; But no person mentioned in 
the word of God, says; I immerse or I immersed or they 
immersed, or that any individual baptized or was baptized 
by immersion. 

5. The word immerse is not found in the z&ord of God:.. 
Any person can determine this matter for himself by read- 
ing the scriptures. He will not find the very word immerse- 
itself in any part of Divine revelation. It is not so much as 
mentioned by any sacred writer, either in the Old or New 
Testament. It is not used in God's word for baptism or for 
any other purpose. So far therefore are men from being 
required, by Divine authority, to be immersed or to immerse 
others, that the word immerse itself is not once used for any 
purpose whatever, in any part of the scriptures of truth. 

6. In the original scriptures, men are not commanded to- 

*Mat. 28: 19. fcAets 2:. 38, and 22:. 16. JMat. 3: 11, 1 Cor. 1: 14. 16, Acts 8: 12. 



84 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I, 

immerse or to he immersed for baptism or to be baptized by 
immersion. In the Greek language there are two words 
(.eix/ScttfTw and Sfx/3a<7r<n£w) which frequently but not always 
signify to put the thing mentioned entirely under water or 
under something else. Neither of these is the very word 
immerse itself; nor is either of them, at any time, used in 
the original spriptures to denote baptism. Indeed, only one 
of them (c^/Sowrrw) is used by the Spirit of God for any 
purpose whatever ; but that one is not at any time or in any 
passage in the Greek Testament, used to signify baptism.* 
If God had intended to teach the world that immersion is 
baptism or the only mode of baptism ; he would certainly 
for this purpose have used, at least once, one of the words 
which sometimes signify to immerse or to put entirely un- 
der water. In the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, 
no word is used for baptism, which denotes immerse. If 
the King of kings had intended to inform the world that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; it is strange, passing 
strange, that he has not told men so in a single passage in 
his own holy book ! ! It is truly astonishing that men should 
be called upon to believe that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism, when the word immerse is not used so much as once 
in the whole word of God, for baptism, or in English for any 
other purpose ! and when neither of the original words which 
sometimes denote immerse is, at any time, used in Scripture 
for baptize. If the word immerse was ever employed in the 
scriptures for any purpose resembling baptism ; men might 
fancy that in such an instance the word denoted baptism. — 
But how can they imagine that the word is recorded in the 
book of God and that it denotes baptism ! And then to crown 
the imaginary climax, they appear to fancy that they can 
make people of sense believe that immersion is not merely 
a mode, but that it is the only mode of baptism. Is it possi- 
ble for a man to believe, that God commands him to be im- 
mersed or to immerse others, when the scriptures do not so 
much as mention immersion as a mode of administering that 
ordinance ? If he can, he can believe that God commands 
what is not so much as once mentioned as baptism in the 
whole of Divine revelation. 

*See Mat. 2G: 23, Mark 14: 20, John 13: 2G, in Greek. 



Ch. 1, § 7, 8.] IMMERSION NOT REQUIRED. 85 

7. God, in his word, does not say that baptize signifies im- 
merse. Any person by reading that holy book can easily 
perceive, that God therein does not say, that the word bap- 
tize always denotes immerse. He does not say that to im- 
merse is its radical meaning ; nor does he so much as inti- 
mate that it is ever used in that sense. Not even a sugges- 
tion of this kind, is found in the whole word of God. By ex- 
plaining the word therefore, God does not teach that baptize 
always or ever denotes immerse. Had he chosen, he could 
have so defined the word baptize. His wisdom could have 
discovered an expression by which it might have been ex- 
plained, if none such had existed among men. But words 
did then exist in the Greek language, by which mankind 
might have been taught that baptize meant immerse, if that 
was in truth its signification. Either of the two words 
(£|x/3a<7r<rw or Sju,/3a<r--i^o)which in Greek frequently signify to 
immerse, might have been used as a substitute for or to de- 
fine the word baptize. If either or both these words had at 
any time been used by Divine inspiration, for baptism, or to 
define that word ; probable evidence would have thus been 
furnished to prove that immersion is one mode of baptism. 
But neither of them is ever used in the word Gf God, either 
as a substitute for or to explain the word baptize. The word 
(a^Satfra) is used three times in the Greek Testament ; but 
in not one of them does it denote baptism ; and it is by no 
means certain, that in any of them it denotes immerse.* — 
God therefore in his word does not teach mankind, that im- 
merse is the only meaning, or the radical meaning, or any 
meaning of the word baptize. To affirm that this is its mean- 
ing, is, therefore to make an assertion unsupported by the lan- 
guage of inspiration. It is to turn aside from the Divine in- 
struction of God ? s word, 

8. In no passage of Scripture does the word bajAism evi- 
dently signify immerse. In the English New Testament, the 
word baptize, in its various modifications, is used eighty-nine 
times ; and in the Greek Testament the original word (f3ait- 
ti^w) for baptize in its different forms, is found in ninety- 
three places. In some of its forms, it is translated into Eng- 
lish by the words " wash " — " washing " — " washed, " and 

#8eeMat. 26: 23, Mark 14; 20, Joim 13: 2G in Greek, 



86 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. It, P. I. 

" washings. 7 '* But in no one of these ninety-three passa- 
ges, does the connection evidently show that immersion is 
necessarily the meaning of the word baptize. To give it a 
different sense will not, in any place where it is used, destroy 
or injure the meaning of the passage. 1 f it be said that John 
baptized at the Jordan by sprinkling, the sense is as strictly 
correct, as if it were said ; he baptized in Jordan by immer- 
sion. When " Philip and the Eunuch' 7 both went down to, 
towards or "into the water, and he baptized him ;' 7 the sense 
is at least as good, if we say he baptized him by sprinkling, 
as if we say, he baptized him by immersion. When Christ 
was baptized ; he did not come irom under but from or " out 
of the water" into which he might have stepped a few inch- 
es.f It is therefore manifest that the word baptize does not 
necessarily or even evidently denote immerse in these passa- 
ges ; and tbese are the only passages where any person would 
think of finding that immersion was necessarily or clearly the 
meaning of the word baptize. 



CHAPTER II. 

NO EXAMPLE OF IMMERSION RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE. 

1. God in his word does not say that any person was im- 
mersed. It is said of Christ and of the Eunuch and of Paul 
and of others ; they were ** baptized ; ?J t but of not one per- 
son, is it said, in the whole book of God ; he was immersed. 

2. No one named in the word of God says of himself that 
he was immersed. In the scriptures, persons are often men- 
tioned as speaking of themselves. But in no instance are 
We told in the word of God ; that any person good or bad, 
declares of himself, I was immersed, or I am about to be im- 
mersed, or I will be immersed, or God requires me to be im- 
mersed. No one individual mentioned in scripture, wise or 
unwise, Christian, Jew or Heathen, pretends to present him- 
self as an example of immersion. 

3. The original ScrijHures do not present any example of 
immersion for baptism. No word denoting immerse is used 
for baptism in the original scriptures. Neither of the two 

*Mark 7: 4, Luke II: 38, Heb. 9: 10, in Greek and English, f^ee Mat. 3; 6. 16, Acta 
8: 38, in Greek. {Mat. 3: 16, Acts 8: 38, and fc 18. 



Ch. 3, § 1.] NO EXAMPLE OP IMMERSION. 87 

words (s^fiatfru or sp(3arfri%u) which in Greek sometimes 
denote immerse, is used of any person to express his baptism. 
The former of these words (s/x/SoMrrw) is the one used in the 
Greek New Testament. It is employed by our Saviour 
when he says; " He that dippeth 7 ' (sja^a-^aj) "his hand 
with me in the dish shall betray me. 77 " It is one of the twelve, 
that dippeth 77 (s^fBairro^svog) "with me in the dish;' 7 — 
" When he had dipped 77 (s^f3a-^as) "the sop, he gave it to Ju- 
das.' 7 * No person, in any of these expressions, is mention- 
ed as being baptized. Since no word which definitely ex- 
presses immersion, is used in scripture to denote any person's 
baptism ; it is evident that the word of God contains no defi- 
nite example of any person being baptized by immersion. — 
And without positive precept (a) or example in the word of 
God to sustain the position, men are called upon to believe 
that immersion and that only, is baptism ! 1 What an un- 
blushing demand ! ! ! 

4. No person mentioned in Divine revelation intimates that 
he immersed others or that he baptized any one by immersion. 
It is often stated that persons baptized others. John "bapti- 
zed 7 ' the Lord Jesus Christ; Paul baptized " Crispus and 
Gaius ;" Philip il baptized 77 the Eunuch ;f and many other 
examples of baptism being administered, are mentioned in the 
Divine word. But not an instance is mentioned of one per- 
son immersing another for baptism or for any other purpose 
whatever. Moreover, it is not stated in a single passage of 
God's word, that any person baptized another by immersion; 
or that the word baptize ever signifies immerse. There is 
therefore no example of immersion for baptism mentioned in 
the whole word of God. 

CHAPTER III. 

IMMERSION NOT INFERENTIALLY TAUGHT IN THE WORD 
OP GOD. 

1. What is intended by an inference or inferential evi- 
dence may be properly noticed here. An inference is not a 
mere assertion ; nor is it taking for granted the point to be 
proved ; nor yet is it an artful evasion of the subjeet in dis- 

*Mat. 26: 23, Ma* 14: 20. John 1& 26, in Greek, (a) Ch. 1, ■§ 1-8. fMark 1: 9, 1 
Cpr. 1; 14 ; Acts 8; 38. 



88 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. *. 

cussion. But an inference is a conclusion fairly drawn from 
what is admitted to be true or has been before proved. That 
which is a proper inference, must be found in, and be a com- 
ponent part of, what is admitted or proved to be true ; or it 
must be manifestly and inseparably connected with it. If 
this is not the case, the conclusion drawn, is not, properly 
speaking, an inference. It is only conjecture or assertion. 
In consequence of man's imperfect judgment ; inferences 
may appear fair to one person, and dark, if not fanciful to 
another. In religious matters therefore but little reliance 
can be placed upon inferences or upon the inferential evi- 
dence resulting from them, where there is no positive scrip- 
ture testimony on the subject. This remark has the more 
force, as every religious doctrine or duty which God requires 
men to believe or practice, is expressed in some portion of 
his word in plain, positive language. Every doctrine or 
practice therefore which claims to be religious, and which 
has no positive scriptural evidence to support its claims, 
ought to be rejected as being destitute of Divine authority 
by which it can be sustained. 

2. From the use of the word "into,' 7 it cannot he inferred 
that persons were immersed for baptism. One essential part 
of immersion is to go or be put entirely under water (a). 
This is not the only meaning of the word u into." Indeed 
this is not even one of its significations. It does not denote 
under or entirely under. When " Abram went down into 
Egypt," he did not go under the ground ; when Christ went 
up into a u mountain," he did not go down undei* it ; when 
the two Marys entered " into" our Saviours " sepulchre," 
they did not go under it ; when the mariners with whom 
Paul was sailing to Rome, were in distress, " they were 
minded" to "trust" the ship " into," not under a "certain 
creek."* These and similar passages in the word of God, 
show most conclusively, that the word into does not mean 
under. When it is said of Philip and the Eunuch ; " they 
both went down into the water ;" the language does not con- 
vey the idea that they went under the water ; or performed 
one essential part of immersion. If it had been said that 
both Philip and the Eunuch went down under the water ; 
then each of them would have performed one act which is 

(a) B. i. P. vii. Ch. 1, § 4, par. 4. *Geu. 12: 10 5 Mat. 5: 1, Mark 16: 5, Acts 27. 30. 



Ch. 3, § 3.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 89 

essential to immersion. But to go " down into the water 7 ' 
is not to go under it ; because into never means under. To 
go down into the garden, or into the meadow, or into the 
cellar ; is not to go under the garden, or under the meadow, 
or under the cellar. To go into, then, is not to go under ; 
and to go down into the water is not therefore to go under 
it in any proper sense of the words used. Nor did going 
" into the water' 7 baptize the Eunuch. But after they had 
both gone down " into the water," then Philip baptized him. 
The language used plainly teaches this fact. It is this; "And 
they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eu- 
nuch ; and he baptized him.' 7 * If it were asked ; what did 
Philip do to the Eunuch after they had both gone " down in- 
to the water V the answer would be ; u he baptized him. 7 ' 
The act of going into the water, was not therefore going un- 
der it, was not immersion in any of its essential parts, was 
not baptism ; for the ordinance of baptism was administered 
after they were both in or at the water. To say therefore 
that the Eunuch was immersed because he went down into 
the water, is to affirm what the language does not teach 
either wholly or in part. Here then we have no inferen- 
tial evidence in favor of immersion. In this passage there 
is no position mentioned or admitted, or proved, from which 
to infer that the Eunuch was immersed. The declaration 
that he was baptized by immersion is a mere assertion un- 
sustained by Divine authority or by even a tolerable infer- 
ence. It is mere unsupported fancy. 

3. From the use of the ivords " out off immersion for bap- 
tism cannot be inferred. Because it is said that " Moses — 
brought 7 ' the children of Israel "up out of the land of 
Egypt ;' 7 no one Avould therefore infer that they had been 
under that land. The proper inference would be that they 
had been in that country. To infer that the lightning which 
" cometh out of, 7 ' had been under " the east, 77 would be mere 
trifling. But a fair inference would be that before it came 
"out of" it had been in, not under, "the east. 7 't For 
Christ to depart " out of this world, 7 '! was not to depart from 
under the ground. When it is stated, that " Jesus went 
up — out of the water," and also that Philip and the Eunuch 
came " up out of the water ; 77 § it might be inferred, not that 

*Acts 8: 38. tEx. 32: 1, Deut. 5: 6, Mat. 24: 27. iJohn 13: 1. §Mat. 3 : 16, Acts 8: 2D. 



90 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

any one or more of them had been under the water; but 
that each of them had been in or into the water, perhaps 
one, perhaps six inches deep. To suppose that coming out 
of the water is coming from under it, — or shows that he who 
came out of it, had been under it, or was immersed, is as in- 
consistent as to say ; that, because Israel came out of Egypt, 
therefore they had been immersed in, or had been under, 
the ground. It would be strictly absurd. Besides, as in or 
into never signifies under ; so the expression " out of," never 
signifies from under. Out of the meadow does not signify 
from under the meadow ; nor out of the garden, from under 
the garden ; nor out of the cellar, from under the cellar ; 
nor out of the barn or house or bed, from under the barn or 
house or bed. As therefore the expression " out of,'' never 
denotes from under; so when Christ or the Eunuch is said 
to come " out of" the water, it is impossible from this lan- 
guage to infer with the least show of propriety, that either 
of them had been under the water or immersed. To affirm 
therefore, that Christ and the Eunuch were immersed, be- 
cause they came "out of the water, 7 ' is 1o speak not only 
without positive instruction from the word of God ; but it is 
giving to the expressions a meaning which does not belong 
to them. Such an assertion is therefore nothing like a fair 
inference drawn from what God's word teaches. Such tri- 
fling with Divine revelation as is exhibited by those who use 
the words " out of," as if they denoted from under, deserves 
the severest rebuke. 

4. The doctrine of immersion cannot he inferred from the 
use of the Greek word (sic:) translated " into." This Greek 
word is found more than six hundred times in the Greek Tes- 
tament. It is used in a great variety of senses. Twelve 
of these are here mentioned. It denotes on, to, in, unto, in- 
to, (not under,) at, against, before, upon, for, towards, 
among* But it does not signify under, nor is it so render- 
ed in the New Testament. From the use of this word by 
the Holy Spirit, it cannot be ascertained that either Philip 
or the Eunuch wet so much as the soles of their feet, when 
"he baptized him." All we can cetainly know from its use is, 
that the Eunuch was not immersed ; for the word (sis) for 

*See Luke 15: 22. and 24: 5, John 7: 5, and 1% 1, Mat. 3: 11. and 2-. 11, Acts 8: 40, 
and 9: 1, and 22: 30, Rom. 13: 6, Mat. 20: 29, 1 Pet, 3: 21, and 4: 8, in Greek and English, 



Ch. 3, § 5.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 91 

into, does not denote under. If the Spirit of God chooses to 
use a word which denotes to, at, towards, and the like ; no 
person can, without presumption, say positively, that it 
means in or into in a particular connection, unless the sense 
of the passage requires it to have that particular significa- 
tion. As the sense of the passage which speaks of the bap- 
tism of the Eunuch, will not be injured by translating the 
word (sig) for "into," by to or toioards; either of these may, 
in that very connection, be its signification. From this word 
therefore, it cannot be fairly inferred that either Philip or 
the Eunuch touched the water with their feet when Philip 
administered the ordinance of baptism to him ; and much 
less that either of them was entirely under its surface. Be- 
sides, this Greek word [z\g] does Jiot denote under or below 
the surface, and to go or be put under water is indispensable 
in immersion. Since therefore, w T hen it is said ; they "went 
down" (sis) " into the water," the sense would not be inju- 
red, if the word (sig) was rendered to or towards, instead of 
into ; and since this Greek word does not denote under or 
below the surface ; no fair inference can be drawn from it 
to sustain immersion. Indeed, that the Eunuch was not im- 
mersed is certain, because the language used by inspiration 
does not signify immersion. 

5. From the use of the Greek ivord (zx) translated " out 
of," immersion cannot be inferred. This word is used by 
the Holy Spirit, when it is said ; " Philip and the Eunuch 
came " up out of the water,"* and in more than three hun- 
dred other places in the Greek Testament. It literally denotes 
from. It is so translated in nearly two hundred passages in 
the New Testament. It marks the point from which a 
movement is made. This appears from the expression ; 
" there came other boats" (sx) u from Tiberias."t These 
boats must have commenced their movement from some part 
of the water near which the town of Tiberias was situated. 
They could not have sailed on the dry land upon which the 
buildings were erected. It is evident therefore that these 
boats did not come out of, but " from Tiberias ;" and that 
the word (sx) translated from, expresses the point from which 
their movement commenced. When therefore Philip and 
the Eunuch came up (sx) from the water, we cannot infer 

*Acts 8: 39 in Greek, f John 6: 23. 



92 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

from the use of this word, that either of them so much as 
wet the soles of their feet in the water ; and much less, that 
either of them was immersed. The only proper inference 
that can be drawn from the use of the Greek word (sx) used 
in this connection by the Holy Spirit, is that they had been 
at or near the water mentioned. Besides, the original word 
(sx) translated " out of," does not denote from under. It is 
not used in this sense in any portion of the word of God. 
No person can therefore, with the least plausibility, infer 
from the use of the original word (sx) translated " out of," 
(not from under,) that either Philip or the Eunuch was im- 
mersed. The same words are used of both ; " they both came" 
(sx) " up out of the water." Ihey both went down into the 
water. This language is used of Philip as really as it is of 
the Eunuch. What it proves of the one, it must therefore 
prove of the other. It however does not prove, nor inti- 
mate, nor suppose that either Philip or the Eunuch was im- 
mersed. 

6. From the use of the Greek word (sv) rendered ll ivith," 
immersion cannot he inferred. In the Greek Testament 
this word (sv) is used about three hundred times. It is trans- 
lated into English by the word " cr£," more than one hun- 
dred times ; and by the word " with'* in more than one hun- 
dred and fifty passages ; and by other words in other places. 
But it does not signify, and is not translated, under, in the 
whole New Testament («). This word therefore gannot 
be forced into the service of immersion by any fair construc- 
tion ; nor can it be made the ground from which immersion 
can be inferred. As the word (sv) does not denote under or 
below the surface ; when it is said, "John baptized" (sv) 
" in" (not under) " Enon," — (sv) " in Jordan," (not under 
it.) — (sv) " with water;"* it cannot be inferred from this 
language, that he baptized under the waters of Jordan or 
under those at Enon : because the word (sv) in Greek never 
denotes under ; nor is this the signification of either in or 
with, in English. But from the language used, it may be 
fairly concluded, that John baptized at or near Enon or the 
Jordan, " with water" taken from that fountain or river ; 

(a) This word (SV) is Greek. So are Sl£, SX and a.TTO. They nre not there- 
fore found in the original of the Old Testament, which is Hebrew. *Mat, 3: 6, It, 
John 3: 23 in Greek and English. 



Gh. 3, § 7.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 93 

because the Spirit of God uses a word (sv) in these passages 
of scripture, which almost universally signifies at or with, 
though it is not used to express under. And it should al- 
ways be borne in mind that in receiving immersion the per- 
son not only goes near or to or in or into, but he must ne- 
cessarily go or be put under, the water in order to be im- 
mersed. From the use of this word (sv), it cannot therefore 
be inferred with any degree of propriety, that John, when 
he baptized, wet the soles of his own feet ; or that the foot 
of any one whom he baptized came in contact with water. 
No one can therefore, from the use of this word (sv), even 
conjecture that John immersed or put entirely under water, 
all whom he baptized. 

Even when this Greek word (sv) is translated in, it fre- 
quently denotes at or near by. This is manifest from the 
following language; "In" (sv) "the place where' 7 Jesus 
' ; was crucified, there was a garden."* Certainly, this gar- 
den was at or near, not under, the place where our Saviour 
was crucified. 

7. Immersion cannot be inferred from the use of the Greek 
word (cwro) translated u out of." It is used in the Greek 
Testament more than three hundred times. It literally sig- 
nifies from, and is so translated in the New Testament more 
than two hundred and fifty times. It not only may, but of- 
'ten must, be so translated ; as in the question which John 
proposed to some of the Jews ; " Who hath warned you to 
flee" (a,7ro) " from," (not out of,) " the wrath to come."f 
Besides, this word (a#o) never signifies from under, any 
more than do the English words "out of" (a). The ex- 
pression, "Jesus — went up — out of the water"t might, 
without injuring the sense or deviating from the original, 
be rendered; Jesus went up from the water. As therefore 
the original word (a^o) here rendered " out of," never sig- 
nifiesy>o?ft under ; it cannot, when used of our Saviour, in- 
timate that he had been under the water or immersed. If a 
person comes "out or' the water, it may be fairly inferred 
that he had been in it ; but to infer that because he came 
" out of," that therefore he had been under, the water, would 
be absurd (a). But how much more absurd would it be, to 

♦John 19: 41 in Greek and English. fMat. 3: 7. 16 in Greek and English, (a) § 3. 
JMat. 3: 16. 



94 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

infer that because Jesus Christ came (arfo)from, that there- 
fore he had been under the surface of the water. From the 
use of this original word, all that can be fairly inferred is, 
that our Saviour had been at or near, and then came (atfo) 
from the water ; and by no means that he had been under 
the water or below its surface. 

8. Immersion cannot be inferred from the use of the word 
baptize. This is the word, the meaning of which is sought. 
To say that the word baptize denotes immerse, because 
some men assert that it does, is not fair inferential evidence. 
To infer immersion from the use of this or any other word; 
it is necessary to find it so situated in some one passage at 
least of the word of God, that no other signification can fair- 
ly be given to it without destroying, or at least injuring, the 
sense. The word baptize is not so situated in any passage 
of scripture. In every place where it is found in God's 
word ; it may have a signification different from immerse. 
In the baptism of Christ, or of the Eunuch, or of Paul, or of 
any other person or persons mentioned in the word of God,* 
(a) not a single expression is used which necessarily includes 
or teaches immersion. That the word baptize denotes im- 
merse cannot therefore be inferred from the connection in 
which it is found in any passage of scripture ; because the 
connection in no passage necessarily requires this to be its 
signification. Since therefore, God in his word, does not 
say that baptize signifies immerse ; since he does not use the 
word in any connection which requires it to have this mean-, 
iing ; since he does not, in one passage of scripture, call that 
baptism, which in another, he calls immersion ; we have 
no scriptural evidence that immersion is the only, the prin- 
cipal or any meaning of the word baptize (b). As that can- 
not be fairly inferred from a word, which is not proved to be 
in it; so no one can, consistently with reason, infer that the 
word baptize denotes immerse ; because this is not necessa- 
rily one of its scriptural significations; nor is this proved, 
from the word of God, to be one of its meanings. From the 
use of the word baptize, therefore, no proper inference can 
be drawn in favor of immersion being even a mode, and 
much less the only mode of baptism. 

*SeeMat. 3: 13-16, Murk 1: 8-10, Luke 3: 21, Acts 8: 36-39, and fr. 18. and 22: 16. 
(a) $2-7, (b) Ch..l, $1-8. 



Ch. 3, § 9.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. fK> 

9. That immersion is baptism cannot be inferred from the 
fact that the word baptize is transferred into the English Bi- 
ble. In every passage except four,* where baptize is used 
ill the Greek Testament, it is transferred into English by 
merely omitting the prefixes and giving the words an Eng- 
lish termination. This one fact proves conclusively that 
the translators of the Holy scriptures into the English lan- 
guage, were wise and faithful men. There is no other sin- 
gle word in the English language, w^hich can express all 
that baptize frequently signifies. When water is, by a New 
Testament minister, applied to a person " in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" he is said 
to be baptized. This one word often expresses all that is de- 
noted by this whole sentence. But all this cannot be ex- 
pressed by any other single word in the English language. 
A log or an animal may be immersed or put entirely under 
water ; but neither can be baptized. A person who is not 
a minister of the gospel, may immerse himself or another ; 
but a minister only can baptize (a). Indeed there is no one 
word which is originally a part of the Hebrew, Syriac, Chal- 
dee, Arabic, Ethiopic, Latin, French, Italian, Spanish or 
English language, which will convey to the mind, the exact 
meaning of the Greek word (/Somt-tj^w) for baptize. Per- 
haps no other word in any language, would be a complete 
substitute for the word baptize. This being the fact, wis-. 
dom to discover this point, and faithfulness in presenting the 
original idea in proper words, will lead those who translate- 
the New Testament from the Greek into other languages, 
to transfer the original word (/Satfr^w) for baptize into their 
translations. Nor would this transfer of the word baptize 
imply that it denoted immerse ; nor could any person on 
that account infer that immersion was one of its significa-*. 
tions. To alter the word baptize, therefore, in order to sus«. 
tain a favorite notion, is not a mark of that " wisdom" which 
41 is from above. "f But to do so shows a bigoted attachment 
to preconceived opinions, and a reckless disregard of Divine- 
truth. The christian loves his religious principles and prac- 
tices, because God in his word teaches them. But he does 

*See Mark 7: 4, Luke 11: 38, and Heb. 9: 10 in Greek, (a) B. i. P. iv. Ch. 1, $ 5, 
B. i. P. vi. Ch. 2, § 1-3. t James 3: 17. 



96 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

not adopt the scriptures of truth ; because, and so far as, 
they sustain his peculiar opinions (a). 

(a) It is no new thing for a class of persons to alter the Bihle. Often when men dis- 
cover an irreconcilable difference between their own beloved and perhaps long-cherish- 
ed opinions, and the word of God; many of them will alter or so modify the Bible as to 
make it conform to their notions. They would much rather take this step than adopt 
Uie word of God as their only rule in all religious duties. These alterations they al- 
ways call improvements, fc-everal societies of people have adopted this course. (1.) 
The Romanists added the Apocrypha and their own traditions to the Bible. They also 
substituted the Vulgate, a very inaccurate Latin translation, as their standard, instead 
of the original Hebrew and Greek. (2.) The Pelagian*, ^emi-Pelagians, andArminians 
found a new translation necessary to sustain their system. Accordingly they made a 
translation of the New Testament to suit their notions. These did not alter the Old 
Testament ; as they do not even profess to have much regard for the instruction con- 
tained in that. (3 ) The Unitarians who generally reject the inspiration of the Old 
Testament have made what they call a translation of the New. In this they omit ma- 
ny verses and some portions of chapters, besides altering many others. They desired 
and made for themselves, a Unitarian New Testament. (4.) The Shakers altered the 
Bible in such a way as to make it suit themselves. (5.) The New Jerusalemites or 
Swedenborgians remodeled the sciiptures so as to make them, if possible, consistent 
with theirfancies. (6.) The Campbellites made a brief paraphrase on the New Testa- 
ment. This they represented as a new translation. (7.) The Baptists discovered that 
the Bible must be altered or no believer in its explicit language, could adopt the notion 
that immersion is ihe only mode of baptism; because it made no such declaration. Ac- 
cordingly they must alter the Biole under the name of a new translation. Jn this the 
word immerse which is inelegant Latin a little modified, is frequently, though not al- 
ways, substituted for baptize which is a modified Greek word. Thus they transferred 
a Latin word into their version of the Bihle, while they were saying all manner of evil 
against others for transferring a Greek word. With them it was right to transfer an 
inelegant word, native to l'a;ran and adopted bv Papal Rome: but wrung to transfer an 
elegant Greek word taught us by " the Holy Ghost.'' (1 Cor. '1: 13.) In altering the Bible to 
make it suit their own system and in substituting the word immerse for baptize; they 
have publicly acknowledged that the unadulterated word of God, does not sustain their 
notions; and that the word baptize does not always denote immerse as they have so of- 
ten and so positively declared. If it did always signify immerse; there would be no 
necessity for making the change in any case; and if immerse was in any one instance, 
substituted for baptize, the substitution mustbe made in all cases; f»r if it always means 
immerse, it ought always to be so rendered, and not in some passages be translated by 
another word as it often is in the Baptist bible. But if they did not really believe that 
immerse was the only meaning of baptize, they ought not to have made the assertion 
so repeatedly; and if immerse is its only meaning, then why not always so render the 
word 7 

The second edition of the Baptist Bible was published in Philadelphia in the year 
1842, by J. B. Lippincott. Its editor, A. C. Kendrick, intimates in his preface to" the 
New Testament, that all the principal Pedo-Baptist commentators sustain his views in 
relation to the word baptize. But so far are all these commentators from maintaining 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism, (and this is his view on the subject,) that 
not one of them adopts that opinion. It is true that several of them admit that immer- 
sion is one mode of baptism ; but not one of them says or even intimates that it is the on- 
ly mode. To make such a statement then concerning those commentators, is a crime 
which deserves a harsher name than can be given to it here. A system that can suffer 
its leading advocates thus deliberately to pervert the truth and vilify the righteous dead, 
will need more than one alteration in the Bible before it can pass enrrent with men of 
truth and veracity. But with all the changes they have made in the word of God to 
make an immersion Bible to suit their system ; the most they have accomplished is to 
make immersion appear to be one mode of baptism. They w'ill have to alter it again to 
make it say that immersion and that only is baptism. Without this, their exclusive sys- 
tem cannot stand the test. Now their immersion Bible affirms that immersion is a 
mode of baptism, not that it is the only mode. Their Bible yet avoids the point in dis- 
pute between immersers and others. This point is, not whether immersion is or is not 
a mode of baptism ; but whether it is or is not the only mode. Their Bible evades this 
point. To prove that immersion is baptism would by no means prove it to be the only 



Gh. 3, § 10.] NO INFERENCE FOR IMMERSION. 9? 

10. Learning cannot find in the word of God, any inferen- 
tial evidence in favor of immersion. Learning cannot find 
that which does not exist. And, as there is no inferential 
evidence in the holy scriptures to sustain the claims of im- 
mersion ; so learning cannot find any such evidence in 
God's word. Learning does not create evidence of any 
kind on any subject. Jt only discovers and presents evidence 
clearly to the mind. Ignorance leaves evidence undiscover- 
ed or unperceived, and substitutes assertion for argument. 
And when learning throws so much light on a subject that 
even ignorance cannot but perceive in some degree the force 
of truth ; then it begins to revile learning, as if its great 
and principal business was to deceive those who were able 
to perceive the force and application of the evidence which 
it presents in favor of truth. Thus the votaries of igno- 
rance are led on by its despotic influence in the paths of 
self-deception, till they stumble on the dark mountains of 
vanity, and are " destroyed for lack of knowledge.' 7 * These, 
at the same time, are, by this their tyrannic master, induced 
to believe that ignorance is almost immaculate purity, and 
learning only varnished vileness. When a subject is made 
so plain by learning that even the ignorant cannot avoid 
perceiving the convincing power of evidence, they then im- 
mediately fancy that learning can prove wrong to be right 
and right, wrong. In this way ignorance keeps its slaves 
bound in its chains, and will continue to do so, unless they 
allow themselves to believe that learning which makes diffi- 
cult subjects plain, is at least as likely to be honest as igno- 
rance which darkens " counsel by words without know- 
ledge."! Indeed, a wiser "than Solomon' 7 teaches us, that 
men love li darkness rather than light, because their deeds" 
are " evil." Upon ignorance therefore which loves " dark- 
ness rather than light," J must the charge of dishonesty rest. 
That which brings matters to the light cannot be chargeable 
with keeping them in the dark. If a charge of dishonesty 

*Hos. 4: 6. tJob 3S: 2. {Mat. 12: 42, John 3: 19. 
mode of baptism. To make out their position, that immersion and th?t only is baptism; 
they rrmst alter their Bible at least once more. (8.) To the Bible, the Mormons have 
added their Book of Mormon and other fancies. They are also making or have made a 
new translation of the New Testament, to make it correspond as much as may be, with 
their system of irreligion. It is therefore nothing remarkable to find men more willing 
to force the Bible into a conformity with their own notions than to lay aside these for 
Divine troth. 

7 



98 BIBLE BAPTISM, [b. II, P. I. 

is to be made, it must therefore be made against ignorance, 
not against learning. Besides, ignorance costs nothing. 
No labor, no time, no means are required to make a person 
ignorant. But not a little of all these is required to make a 
person learned. Now since ignorance can deceive as well 
as learning, if not better, (because it may be sincere in its 
deceptions,) who would labor long and hard for the sake 
of deceiving others when by remaining in a state of igno- 
rance, he could, without labor, accomplish his object better ? 
There is little danger of real learning deceiving any person 
in relation to baptism or any other subject ; while sophistry, 
self-sufficiency, bigotry and ignorance are to be dreaded by 
all who would not be their dupes. There is no danger of 
true learning ever presenting any inferential evidence in fa- 
vor of immersion, as if that were thus taught in the word of 
God ; for this plain reason, that true learning, when it is 
brought to bear on that subject, will soon perceive that, in 
the Scriptures, there is no such evidence in favor of immer- 
sion. 



CHAPTER IV. 

NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION IN THE WORD OF GOD. 

1. An allusion cannot, properly speaking, be made to that 
which does not exist. To allude or make an allusion, is to 
refer to something. In making an allusion, the thing allu- 
ded to is not generally at the time, mentioned in plain words. 
But the fact that an allusion is made to any thing, proves that 
what is alluded to, does exist. If therefore a thing does not 
exist, it cannot be alluded to. But as immersion is not so 
much as once mentioned in the whole word of God, no per- 
son ought to expect to find therein an allusion made to it ; 
for it must be but a fanciful conjecture to suppose that Om- 
niscience would allude in the Divine word, to what he, in it, 
does not even once name. Nor would it be less fanciful to 
imagine that God would very often mention baptism in his 
word by its own proper designation, and not once call it im- 
mersion, or in any way describe it by language which de- 
notes immerse, if he intended to teach mankind that this was 
baptism or the only mode of baptism. To find an allusion 



Ch..4, § 2.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. 99 

made in the word of God to immersion, is not therefore to 
be expected ; because the thing itself is not therein named. 

2. The word bury does not allude to immersion. This 
word in English does not either literally or figuratively re- 
fer to immersion. To say that a person is buried, might al-. 
lude to. the decay of his body, or to its resurrection, or pos- 
sibly to the immortality of the soul of him whose body was 
buried ; but to say that bury literally alludes to immersion, 
is mere unbridled conjecture. Every one knows that to 
bury the dead is not the same thing as to put the living en* 
tirely under water. To bury does not mean to immerse. 
To say that a person is buried then cannot literally teach or 
allude to immersion. Figurately, the word bury denotes to 
hide or conceal, not to immerse. The person who is im- 
mersed is not even concealed the moment he is under the 
water. Nor is there any attempt made in immersion to 
conceal or hide the person immersed. Nothing of this kind 
was attempted, when individuals, both male and female were 
immersed in a state of perfect nudity. So far then is the 
word bury, in its figurative signification, from alluding to or 
teaching immersion, that immersers themselves do not even 
attempt to conceal or hide the immersed. This act there- 
fore does not, cannot bear aiiy resemblance to the figurative 
meaning of the word bury. 

The Greek word (tW<rw) used for bury* expresses all the 
parts of an ancient funeral. These were various. (1.) The 
dead body was washed, not by immersing it entirely under, 
but by applying water to it ; (2.) It was wrapped in a clean 
cloth; (3.) It was laid out; (4.) It was laid in a suitable 
place, usually for one or more days ; ("5.) It was anointed ; 
(6.) It was embalmed ; (7.) It was carried out to the narrow 
"■ house appointed for all the living ;' ? (8.) It was deposited 
in the grave. f This original word (dafirrw) which in its va- 
rious modifications, expresses much more than the English 
word funeral, has this eight-fold signification («). For a per^ 
son therefore to say that, when this word is used, an allu- 
sion is made to immersion, or that immersion is taught by 
it, is to proclaim himself a mere tyro in Greek literature, 

*See Rom. 6: 4. Col. 2: 12, Mark. 14: 8, John 12: 7, in Greek and English, t^ea 
Acts 9: 37, Mat. 27: 59. 60, Mark 15: 46, and 16: 1, Luke 7: 12, and 23: 53. 56, and 24: 1, 
Job 30: 23, John 11: 38. 44. fa; See Greek Lexicons. 



100 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, F. h 

Indeed, the most superficial observer cannot but perceive 
that a word of such a signification, can have no allusion to 
immersion. If a person should affirm that the word funeral 
referred to immersion, or that going to a funeral indicated 
,that immersion was baptism ; the assertion would be suffi- 
ciently absurd. But to say that a word (daffrw) which de- 
notes to wrap in a cloth, to anoint, to lay out and to embalm, 
besides expressing all that is included in the term funeral, 
alludes to immersion; is crowding too hard on the common 
sense of mankind. 

3. The word bury or buried does not in any passage of 
scripture, allude to immerse. Men have quoted three passa- 
ges of the word of God, to prove such an allusion. In two 
. of these, the word buried is used ; in one it is not, though 
the death of Christ is mentioned in this last. These are (1.) 
" We are buried with him by baptism into death ;" (2.) Ye 
are " buried with him in baptism ;" (3.) " So many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
death."* These expressions of scripture are sometimes sup- 
posed to allude to immersion. Men often assert that they 
teach this to be a mode, if not the only mode of baptism. As 
the word bury or buried does not, either in its literal or figu- 
rative sense, denote immerse(a); so in the use of that word, 
no such allusion can be found. If these portions of God's 
word are-carefully examined, no allusion to immersion can 
be found in them. This appears (1.) From the fact that the 
word bury(a) or "buried" does not signify any thing that 
resembles what is done to a person who is immersed(J). 
The word bury or buried does not in itself, allude to im- 
merse. (2.) Moreover, in the burying mentioned in these 
passages, persons are said to be " buried with" Christ " by 
baptism into death," not into the grave. The death of 
Christ took place on the cross. We "are buried with him 
by baptism into death." But death by crucifixion has no 
resemblance to immersion ; therefore baptism into Christ's 
death on the cross, does not, cannot, teach, or even allude to 
immersion. There is not the least resemblance between 
the Saviour's death on the cross several feet above the 
ground, and the putting of a person entirely under water. 
That any person should ever imagine that being buried with 

*Rom. 6: 3. 4, Col. 2: 12. (a)<> 2. (b)B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, $ 4. 



Ch. 4, § 3.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. 101 

him by baptism into death on the cross, had any reference to 
immersion, is truly surprising. (3.) Besides, if this burying, 
instead of being into death on the cross, as it is, had been, 
buried with him into his grave ; still there could be, even 
then, no allusion to immersion. Our Saviour when buried 
was laid ina u new tomb — hewn out of a rock." A "great 
stone" was "placed at the door of" this his '* sepulchre." 
The place in which he was laid was so large that the two 
Marys u entering into the sepulchre-^-saw a young man sit- 
ting at the right side" of it ; and that Peter and the beloved 
** disciple"* entered it at the same time. Our Lord's sepul- 
chre was therefore a small room hewn out of a rock, suffi- 
ciently large for a number of persons to enter and remain 
in it together. There is then no more resemblance between* 
the act of laying the dead body of Christ in the tomb and 
that of a living person going entirely under water, than there 
would be between immersion and laying a dead body in a 
small bed-room. Between the two acts, there is not the least 
resemblance ; nor is there the most distant allusion in one 
of them, made to the other. (4.) Between the mode of dis- 
posing of the dead in any country by any people and immer- 
sion, there is not the least resemblance ; and consequently in 
the one there can be no allusion made to the other. Some por- 
tions of the human race consume their dead on funeral piles ; 
some deposit a part of them at least on trees ; some place the 
body in a sitting posture ; some place the dead in a kind of arti- 
ficial caves called vaults ; and some remove the earth and lay 
the body in the place from which the material was removed 
and then sprinkle or shovel the earth in upon the corpse. 
The last two modes are adopted by christian and civilized 
nations. The others are practiced by the savage and semi- 
barbarous. It is manifest that to consume a body by fire or 
place it on a tree, or in a sitting posture, cannot resemble 
immersion. To lay a corpse in a vault is like placing it in 
a cellar, not like putting a living man under water. Nor 
does that mode of interment resemble immersion, in which 
the earth is removed from its original position, the body laid 
in the place from which the earth was taken, and then the 
dead covered by putting upon it a small quantity of earth at 

*Mat. 27: 60, Mark 15: 46, and 16: 5, Luke 23: 33, and 24: 3, John 19: 41. 42, and 20: 



102 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

a time. This mode of burying might resemble sprinkling or 
pouring, but could not resemble immersion ; because in this, 
there is no one act that looks in the least like putting a liv- 
ing person under water. But if any people should, in dis- 
posing*of their dead, take the body and turn it over back- 
wards and thrust it into the ground; then that kind of bury- 
ing would resemble immersion as practiced by some ; and if 
any turned the body forward or made it kneel down, and 
then thrust it into the earth ; in this case, immersion as prac- 
ticed by others would be represented. But as no nation or 
people, savage or civilized, adopt either of these modes of 
burying their dead ; so immersion as practiced by any class 
of immersers, does not and cannot resemble the mode in 
which any people bury their dead. It is manifest therefore 
that no nation or tribe of men so dispose of their dead, as to 
make in their interment, an allusion to immersion. (5.)Tobe 
buried with Christ "by baptism into death,' 7 does not teach or 
allude to any mode of baptism with water. It is expressly stat- 
ed that those who are buried with him by baptism into death, 
are "baptized into Jesus Christ;''" "walk in newness of life;" 
have their "old man — crucified ;" do "not serve sin ;" are 
dead "unto sin;" are "alive unto God ;" are "alive from 
the dead ;" have "obeyed from the heart ;" are " made free 
from sin ; ?J are "the servants of righteousness;" are "be- 
come the servants of God ;" are " risen with him through 
the faith of the operation of God ;" are " quickened together 
with him;" and " have their trespasses' 7 forgiven.* The per- 
sons here described must have been true christians. No ex- 
ternal application of water in any mode or by any person, 
could possibly remove from the sinner, his "carnal mind which 
is enmity against God,"f and produce in him that spiritual 
mind which is here described. To do this is the work of the 
Holy Spirit(a); not of baptism with water. It is manifest 
from facts that baptism with water, whatever may be the 
mode or whoever the administrator, is not always preceded, 
accompanied or followed by the regenerating and convert- 
ing grace of God's spirit. Too many after they are bapti- 
zed, no matter how or by whom the ordinance may have 
been administered, prove by their actions that they are yet 

*Rom. 6: 3. 4. 6. 11. 13. 17. 18. 22, Col. 2: 12. 13. fRom. 8: 7. (a) B. i, P. v, Ch. 1, 



Cll. 4, § 3.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. 103 

" enemies" of God "by wicked works."* Simon the Sama- 
ritan sorcerer, after " he was baptized" with water, was still 
H in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. "f 
His could not therefore have been that baptism which leads 
those who receive it to "walk in newness of life." As no 
baptism but that of the Holy Ghost can produce this new 
and spiritual " walk ;" so whenever this " newness of life" 
is produced, baptism with the Holy Ghost or regeneration 
has taken place. But this holy walk results from being 
" baptized into" Christ's M death ;" therefore this baptism 
must be " with the Holy Ghost, "4 and not with water ; be- 
cause this does and baptism with water does not, invariably 
produce "newness of life." The baptism therefore mention- 
ed in these passages, being baptism with the Holy Ghost does 
not teach or allude to immersion or any mode of water bap- 
tism. (6.) Christians, it is said, "are risen with" Christ, 
"through the faith of the operation of God."§ This rising 
is not the act of coming out of the grave. Christians, as 
well as others, will start from the sleep of ages, when the 
sound of the Archangel's trumpet shall re-echo along the 
cold damp vaults of death, on the morning of the general 
judgment day. But the rising here mentioned is that which 
has already taken place in every true believer. " Ye are 
risen" not ye shall rise, is the language of God's word to 
his people. This rising then which is by faith, and which 
has already occurred in the case of «very true christian, must 
be a rising from that state in which he was dead in sin. But 
rising from a state of death in sin, is simply being delivered 
from its power by the regenerating grace of God's Spirit. 
And to deliver the soul from the power of sin, and remove 
its guilt by the blood of Christ, cannot be represented or al- 
luded to by taking the body up from under the water. (7.) 
If a person is put entirely under water, he may be raised up 
out of it again ; but this act of raising the body up out of the 
water, can have no necessary connection with that rising 
from a state of spiritual death, which is " by the faith of the 
operation of God." To be raised from spiritual death is one 
thing ; and to be raised up from under water, is another. 
To give natural life to a dead body, or to give spiritual life 

*CoJ, 1; 21. fActs 8: 13. 23. f Mat. 3; 11. Mark %: 8, Lnke 3; 16. $Col. 2: 12. 



104 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

to a dead soul, and thus to bring the one to natural and the 
other to spiritual life, can have, in the act, no resemblance 
or allusion to the raising up of a person from under the wa- 
ter. (8.) That any person in his senses should ever serious- 
ly suppose that, to lay a person down on his face or on his 
back in water in such a way as to cover him entirely with 
the element, resembles or alludes to the death of Christ, 
which was caused by elevating him perpendicularly upon a 
cross some distance above the earth, is, to a reflecting mind, 
truly surprising. No two things can resemble each other 
less or be less likely to allude the one to the other, than im- 
mersion and crucifixion. Had our Saviour been drowned 
or buried alive, then his death might have been partially 
symbolized by immersion. But to imagine that immersion 
represents or alludes to crucifixion, is a flight of fancy wor- 
thy of the German Anabaptists. For sensible men to say, 
that to be "buried with" Christ "by baptism into death' 7 on 
the cross, is to be put entirely under water, is a complete 
solecism. What can be more absurd, than to say that to be 
put entirely under water, means to be suspended upon the 
cross ! ! or to say that immersion resembles crucifixion ! ! 
The advocates of such a wild fancy, must, to men of sense, 
appear truly ridiculous. 

4. Noah and his faintly mere preserved in the ark ; but 
this fact does not teach or allude to immersion. The lan- 
guage in which some persons fancy that immersion is taught 
or alluded to, is this; "God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was — preparing, wherein few, that is, eight 
souls, were saved by water ; the like figure whereunto, 
even baptism doth also now save us."* In the ark, Noah 
and his family were saved from the all-devouring flood. 
They "only remained alive" of the whole human race who 
then lived on earth. The ark, the vessel in which they were 
saved from this overwhelming calamity, was borne up by, 
and " went upon, the face" or surface "of the waters."t 
Noah and his family were saved in the ark. This vessel 
was borne up, " upon the face of the waters." This deliv- 
erance from a tremendous temporal judgment, of all who 
were actually in the ark, represents the deliverance, from 
eternal misery, of all true believers. This spiritual salva- 

*1 Pet. 3: 20. 21. t<2en. 7: 17. 18. 23. 



Ch. 4, § 4.] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. 105 

tion is enjoyed by those, and by those only, who have by 
faith entered the spiritual ark, the Lord Jesus Christ. By 
faith sinners are brought into this ark ; for by faith, and by 
faith only, are they united to Christ. God the Spirit, in re- 
generation, or when they are baptized with the Holy Ghost, 
produces this " faith" in their souls.* The baptism here men- 
tioned saves us. As no baptism is essential to salvation, ex- 
cept that of the Spirit ; so this baptism which saves us, or is 
essential to salvation, must therefore be baptism with the 
Holy Ghost, and not with water. It is this spiritual baptism 
therefore, of which Noah's preservation in the ark was a 
figure. But his preservation in the ark could not be a figure 
of immersion ; because there is no resemblance between the 
one and the other. That there is no allusion to immersion 
in the preservation of Noah and his family in the ark, ap- 
* pears ; (1.) From the fact that they were saved by being 
in the ark, above the water, not by being put under that 
fluid, as is the case with all who are immersed ; (2.) From 
the fact that the ark "went on the face of the waters," or 
floated on their surface, so that even the vessel in which they 
were saved, was not immersed or put entirely under water. 
(3.) To be carried in the ark above water, could not possi- 
bly allude to, or represent immersion, or the putting of per- 
sons all over under its surface. (4.) They were under the 
roof of the ark ; and persons are usually immersed in the 
open air. (5.) They "were entirely hid from those who were 
on the outside of the ark ; but when persons are in the act 
of receiving immersion, they are visible to those who are 
near them ; because water is transparent, but the covering 
of the ark was not. (6.) The covering of the ark did not 
come in contact with Noah and his family, or with their 
dress ; but those who are covered with water in immersion, 
have the covering element, water, in contact at least with 
their dress. It is manifest therefore that the preservation 
of Noah and his family in the ark, did not, in any sense of 
the word, allude to immersion. In those who perished in 
the flood, an allusion to immersion might easily be discover^ 
ed ; for these were entirely covered with water, and so are 
the immersed. Here then is a very manifest resemblance 

*Gal. 5: 22, Eph, 2: 8, Phil. 1: 29, Heb. 12: 2 t 



106 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

between those who were wholly covered with the waters of 
the deluge, and those who are wholly covered with water in 
immersion. But Noah and his family were not immersed 
or put entirely under water. Even the very ark in which 
they were preserved, was not immersed ; for it moved on 
the surface of, instead of sinking entirely under, the water. 
A person in the ark was as safe from being immersed, as he 
would be in a house or church, in which no cistern could be 
found. In the preservation of Noah and his household in 
the ark, there was not a single point which resembles im- 
mersion in the least. Noah and his family were saved from 
being immersed in water. Those who enjoy that baptism 
of which their preservation in the ark was a type, are 
now saved from being immersed in sin, from remaining un- 
der " the wrath of God" and from legal condemnation. 
They will also, in the world to come, be saved from being- 
immersed "in the lake which burnetii with fire and brim- 
stone/"* In the preservation, therefore, of Noah and his 
household in the ark, there can be no allusion to, or evidence 
In favor of, immersion. 

5. TJie expression " washing'' or " washed with water f* 
•does not allude to immersion. The language used by inspi- 
ration, and which includes the words l ' washing" and "wash- 
ed," is this; u Ye are washed;" — "Christ — loved the 
church— that he might — cleanse it with the washing of wa- 
ter by tire word ;" — " He saved us b^ the washing of regen- 
eration;" — M Let us draw near" to God, " having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water ;"— and " wash away thy sins."t In re- 
lation to these passages, it may be remarked, (1.) That the 
word immerse is not used in any of them. Nor does the 
Greek word (Xouw) or (Xourpov) used in them for wash ne- 
cessarily denote immerse.J (2.) If the washing mentioned 
in them, is literal ; then to perform such a washing, more is 
necessary than to dip that to be washed into water, so that 
it may be entirely covered and then immediately take it out 
again. No literal pollution could be removed in this way. 
To wash away literal defilement supposes more than this. 
Indeed, in washing literally, a part of the thing washed, if 

*Rev. 21: 8. U Cor. 6: 11, Eph. 5: 2o. 26. Tit. 3: 5, Heb. 10: 22. Acts. 22, 16. JSee 
Eph. 5; 26, Heb. 10: 23 in Greek, and Greek Lexicons on the words, 



Ch. 4, § 5-] NO ALLUSION TO IMMERSION. 107 

not the whole of it, is frequently out of the water during the 
operation. Moreover, in washing a person, or almost any 
vessel, the water is applied to what is washed, instead of 
even dipping what is washed into the water. If the article 
washed is not so much as dipped into the water, certainly it 
could not be immersed or put entirely under water in the 
act of being washed. When persons wash themselves, or 
are washed by others, or when tables, churns, tubs, pails, or 
the like, are washed ; they are not usually, if at all, im- 
mersed in water. A literal washing therefore requires more 
than immersion ; and it is not usually performed by immers- 
ing the articles washed. (3.) In ceremonial washings wa- 
ter is applied to a part only of the person washed, to make 
him ceremonially " clean every whit." # (4.) The word 
ivash is used to express the falling of tears on the part wash- 
ed. Our Saviour's feet were "washed' 7 with "tears."f 
Every one knows that tears always fall in drops. That 
which is washed " with tears," is therefore washed with 
drops falling upon it; or in other words, it is washed by 
sprinkling. This washing then could not possibly teach im- 
mersion ; for no one can, for a moment, suppose that our 
Lord's feet were put entirely under water in the tears with 
which they were washed. (5.) If the washing mentioned 
in these passages, is spiritual ; then the body is not repre- 
sented as being washed either wholly or in part ; because, 
spiritual washing is that of the soul, — not the washing of the 
body in any of its parts, or for any purpose. (6.) The first 
of these passages may denote that christians "are washed" 
in the blood of Christ ; in the second and fourth, the persons 
washed had water applied to them in some mode to symbol- 
ize the washing away of sin. The third, as it is expressly 
called " the washing of regeneration," not the washing "of 
water," or of baptism, must denote the purifying influences 
of the Holy Spirit in his regenerating power upon the soul. 
In the fifth, the washing " away of sins," is mentioned. No 
truly converted person can be made to believe that this work 
is effected by the application of water to the body. Only 
two of these passages therefore can possibly speak of bap- 
tism. And in neither of these is any word used, that de- 
notes immersion ; nor is any such word found in the con- 

*John 13: 10. ^Lxike 7: 38. 44, 



108 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

text. Not the least intimation then is given us in any one 
of these passages that immersion is baptism. But as nothing 
is said in them, either directly or indirectly, in favor of im- 
mersion for baptism or for any other purpose ; they can 
therefore contain no real allusion to that substitute for a Di- 
vine ordinance. (7.) As sprinkling is mentioned in one of 
these passages, that mode may be taught or alluded to when 
the application of water is mentioned. (8.) But it is clear 
that immersion is not taught or alluded to, in any of these 
passages, whether a literal, ceremonial or spiritual washing 
is taught in one or more of them. (9.) The word wash does 
not signify immerse. This is not one of its meanings in 
the English language. (10.) If it, at any time, signifies 
baptize, this is a figurative sense of the term ; as baptize 
and wash are by no means synonymous in their significa- 
tions. It is manifest therefore that to wash with water, is 
not an expression which alludes to immersion. 

6. To be covered all over with any material, does not al- 
lude to or teach immersion. If to be covered with any sub- 
stance is immersion (a), then all persons are constantly im- 
mersed ; for all are at all times covered with atmospheric 
air. This is essential to our very existence. In the ordi- 
nary course of Providence, no person could live long, if he 
was not covered with air. But if to be entirely covered 
with air, is to be immersed ; then every person who has been 
baptized in any mode in the name of the Trinity, must, by 
immersers themselves, be admitted to be properly baptized. 
This they must acknowledge too, whether much or little 
water is used ; or even if the words prescribed by our Sa- 
viour were used* and no water applied, they must then ad- 
mit that valid baptism was administered, because at the time 
of the ceremony, they were entirely covered with air. If 
to be covered with air is immersion ; and if immersion is 
baptism ; then it necessarily follows that to be covered with 
air is baptism, if the proper form of words are used by a pro- 
per person. But immersers deny that such are baptized ; 
and hence according to them, to be entirely covered with 
air is not to be immersed for baptism. Perhaps they would 
not admit, that to be entirely covered with sand or earth or 

(a) See P. vii. Ch. 1, $ 4. *See Mat. 23: 19. 



Gh. 5, § 1-] IMMERSION NOT THE ONLY MODE. 109 

smoke or fog, is to be immersed in their sense of the word. 
They would not then consider a person who had been covered 
with one of these as having been as properly baptized as if 
he had been covered entirely with water. If the practice 
of immersers may be taken as proof on this subject, we may 
conclude that by immerse they mean entirely covered with 
water ; because, when they immerse persons, they always 
put the part of them, or at least of their clothes, not wet by 
themselves, entirely under water ; never under sand, air, 
earth, smoke, fog or any other substance. It appears there- 
fore that immersers, they themselves beiDg judges, do not 
believe that immersion signifies to be covered with any sub- 
stance. When therefore they take the ground that to be 
entirely covered with any thing, is immersion ; they for- 
sake their own exclusive notions, because they declare by 
their actions, that to be immersed, a person must be entire- 
ly covered with water. If therefore an individual should 
say that a body buried in the earth is immersed ; he would 
by such an assertion, forsake the exclusive creed of immers- 
ers. Because, they, by their actions, say that to be cover- 
ed with earth is not immersion ; nor is it known that, in 
immersing a person, they ever cover him with earth. If to 
be entirely covered with any substance, is to be immersed ; 
then the whole human race are constantly immersed, as 
they are at all times, entirely covered with air. But cer-* 
tainly such an immersion, or an immersion in smoke, or 
fog, or earth, could not teach or allude to the immersion en- 
tirely under water of the person so covered. It is certain 
that to be thus covered could not teach that immersion is 
baptism, or the only mode of baptism. 



CHAPTER V. 

IMMERSION NOT THE ONLY MODE OP BAPTISM. 

1. Christian baptism is mentioned in the word of God. 
This fact is taught in the commission given by the Lord Je- 
sus Christ to the disciples and their successors in the minis- 
terial office. These are commanded to teach and baptize.* 
That they did baptize with water, in obedience to Christ's 

*See Mat. 2£: 19. 



110 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

direction, is a fact often stated in scripture ; and that per- 
sons were commanded to receive the ordinance of baptism 
after his resurrection, is also too frequently mentioned to be 
denied by any person who believes the bible to be a revela- 
tion from God* (a). That the ordinance of christian bap- 
tism is mentioned in the book of God, is therefore an unde- 
niable fact. 

2. Immersion is not, in the Scriptures, mentioned as a mode 
of baptism. Any person who reads the word of God, can 
easily determine this point for himself. It is a mere matter 
of fact. If the word immerse or immersion is once record- 
ed in the scriptures of truth, it can be found and the chap- 
ter and verse mentioned. The person who examines this 
subject, with the least degree of care, will soon discover that 
the much-loved word immerse is not, in the scriptures, used 
for baptism. Notwithstanding all the noise which has been 
made to induce persons to believe that immersion is the on- 
ly mode of baptism ; God has not definitely taught mankind 
in his word that it is even one mode of administering that 
ordinance. It will be difficult to make men of sense believe 
that what is not so much as once mentioned in the whole 
word of God as baptism, is the only mode by which it can 
be administered.. 

3. Immersion, as a mode of baptism, is not, by other lan- 
guage, definitely taught in the holy scriptures. There is, in 
the word of God, no command for immersion (b) ; no exam- 
ple of immersion (c) ; no inferential evidence in favor of 
immersion (rf) ; nor is there in the scriptures even a man^ 
ifest allusion to, immersion (e). This therefore cannot be 
the only mode of baptism. But though to sustain its claims, 
it has no authority from the word of God, no evidence in its 
favor either direct or indirect, from Divine truth ; yet im- 
mersion, with all the self-importance of an Eastern Despot, 
steps forth and demands to itself submission from all, as the 
only mode of baptism. It is so self-opinionated that it is not, 
(without any definitely expressed scriptural evidence of any 
kind in its favor,) satisfied to be allowed a standing as a 
mode of baptism. It even demands to be acknowledged as 

*See Acts 2: 38. 41, and 8: 12. 13, and 10: 47 48, and 16: 15. 33, and 10-. 5, and 22: 16, 
1 Cor. 1: 13-17. (a) K. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 2-5. (b) Ch. 1, $ \-8. (c) Ch. 2, $ 1-4. 
(d) Ch. 3, $ 1-10. (c) Ch. 4, $ 1-6. 



Ch. 5, § 4, 5.] IMMERSION NOT THE ONLY MODE. Ill 

the only mode. Truly in this, the unfledged, unproved, un^ 
named thing (a), manifests no small amount of assurance. 

4. If any number of passages of Scripture stated express* 
ly that immersion ivas baptism, and that persons were im- 
mersed for btptism, this would not prove immersion to be the 
only mode of baptism. If one passage or ten or ten thou- 
sand, stated expressly that immersion was baptism^ or & 
mode of baptism, then scriptural evidence would thereby 
be furnished to prove that immersion was baptism. But no 
number of declarations to prove immersion to be baptism, 
would prove it to be the only mode of baptism ; or that no- 
thing but immersion is baptism. If imtnersers could prove 
from the express language of scripture that immersion was 
baptism ; the same express language of scripture, might- 
prove that water applied in a different mode was baptism al- 
so. To prove the position therefore which the exclusive 
immersers always take, that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism ; they must furnish proof to the point. They must 
first show by some express declaration of scripture, that im- 
mersion is baptism. This they cannot do, for this plain rea- 
son ; there is no such passage recorded in God's book. And 
then after they have accomplished this impossibility ; they 
have another to accomplish, which is not less difficult than 
the former. They have then to produce one passage of 
scripture or more to prove that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. But no portion of the word of God, teaches ex- 
plicitly that immersion is baptism (b) ; and much less that 
it is the only mode of baptism. So far therefore as Divine 
revelation is concerned ; there is not the least intimation 
given to mankind to prove that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. 

5. If there is but one mode of baptism, that cannot be im- 
mersion. That which is not expressly mentioned in the 
word of God, cannot be the only mode of baptism. Immer- 
sion is not thus mentioned ; it cannot therefore be the only 
mode of baptism. In no portion of scripture, is immersion 
called a mode or the only mode of baptism. God, in one 
passage of his word, speaks of "one baptism ;"* but in no 
portion of it, does he speak of one mode of baptism ; and least 

(a) It is as baptism, unnamed in the word of God. (b) Ch. 1, § 1-7, Ch. 2, § 1-1. 
*Eph. 4: 5. 



112 BIBLE BAPTISM. [l3. II, P. I. 

of all does he say that there is only- one mode of baptism. 
But if there is only one mode oj baptism, it is perfectly cer- 
tain to those who take God's truth for their rule of duty in 
all religious matters, that immersion is not that mode. Those 
who read the scriptures know full well that Divine truth 
does not declare that immersion is a mode or the only mode 
of baptism. It is manifest to them that what is not once de- 
finitely named, in God's word, as baptism, either in the orig- 
inal or in any correct translation, cannot be the only way 
in which that ordinance is to be administered. What God 
does not plainly teach in his word, cannot be even a reli- 
gious duty which m^n are, by Divine authority, required to 
observe. That immersion is not thus taught, is too mani- 
fest to be denied by any person who reads and believes what 
is revealed in God's word. 

6. Baptism in some mode may be explicitly revealed in the 
Holy Scriptures, though immersion as baptism is not so re- 
vealed. Because the word immerse is not found in the trans- 
lation of the scriptures into English ; it does not follow that 
no other word is used in them. Though immersion is not 
plainly taught therein ; other words may be used, which 
may teach a mode of baptism entirely different from immer- 
sion. And although no word in the original scriptures de- 
noting immersion, is so much as once used for baptism or to 
define that word(a); yet words in the original )anguages of 
God's book may be used to teach another mode of baptism. 
It does not therefore follow that if there is no evidence to 
prove that immersion is baptism ; then no evidence can be 
found to prove that baptism may be administered in any 
other way. The point then to which the mind is brought on 
this subject, is ; not whether a person is to be immersed or 
not baptized ; but whether a person is to substitute immer- 
sion which is not mentioned in scripture as a mode of bap- 
tism, for that which is so mentioned ; and let this thing which 
as baptism, is totally nameless in the word of God, arrogate 
to itself the exclusive privilege of being the Divine ordinance, 
of baptism ! ! From these remarks it can be seen of how 
much value is the assertion ; " If immersion is not the mode 
or the only mode of baptism, then there is no baptism." 

(a) Ch. 1, $ 5-7. 



Oh. 6, § 1.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 113 

Would such persons really lay aside the word of God rather 
than their own beloved substitute for baptism ? From the 
language they often use, it appears that at least some of them 
would. 



CHAPTER VI. 

IMMERSION FOR BAPTISM IMPROBABLE. 

1. It is not probable that persons vsere immersed, in places 
where it is certain they were baptized. (1.) John baptized 
"in Bethabara beyond Jordan/'* There is no evidence 
that at or near this place, water sufficiently deep to immerse 
in, was found. That he immersed these, is without proof, 
and consequently improbable. (2.) He baptized "in Enon 
near to Salim. ?? f In this place were several small springs 
rising out of the ground. These uniting formed one foun- 
tain several inches deep. From this flowed a small rivulet. 
But here was no water so deep that in it an adult person 
might be immersed(tf). Grown persons could not therefore 
be immersed in Enon, unless a suitable place was construct- 
ed for that purpose. And, as not the least hint is given us 
that such an artificial receptacle was formed in which to im- 
merse ; so, that he immersed in Enon is not probable. Be- 
sides, the Jordan is so near Enon, as to render the labor of 
constructing an artificial cistern sufficiently large to im- 
merse in, entirely useless. The Jordan and Enon are only 
a few miles apart. It would therefore have been much more 
convenient for persons to have gone that short distance, than 
to have made an artificial cistern in which to immerse. But 
the word of God does not intimate that any thing of the kind 
was done ; and the work of God in creating a number of 
small springs at Enon, shows that if persons were immersed 
there, an artificial cistern of some kind must have been pro- 
vided. To fancy, therefore, that John immersed at Enon 
must be an exceedingly improbable conjecture. (3. ; ) He 
baptized " in the wilderness"! (b). No evidence can be 
found in the word of God or in his works to prove that liv- 
ing water in any quantity was found in the wilderness where 
John baptized. It is exceedingly improbable that water in 

♦John 1: 28, and 10: 40. fJohn 3: 23. (a) See Jerome; Sandy, Sacred Geography, 
JMark 1: 4. (b) See Dr. Ryland's Candid Siatement. 



114 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

sufficient quantities to immerse, was carried away into this 
wilderness; and that he immersed there is therefore equally- 
improbable. (4.) Baptism was administered in various parts 
of Palestine, and probably in all seasons of the year. But, 
as all the streams in that country except the Jordan, dry up 
in summer(a); so it is very improbable that immersion was 
the mode or the only mode of baptism there practiced. (5.) 
Baptism was administered in " the way" between " Jerusa- 
lem and Gaza(&), which is desert." A rivulet rises some 
distance from this way or road. It runs a short distance and 
loses itself in the sand. This stream is only a few inches 
deep. It is also quite narrow. It is seldom or never much- 
increased by freshets. This is the largest, or rather the only 
stream on this route from Jerusalem to Gaza(c). The lan- 
guage of inspiration intimates that the stream was not only 
small, but very small. It is this. u As" Philip and the Eu- 
nuch ** went on their way, they came" (stfi n u<5wp) u to" or 
upon " a certain water." It was so small that, even in that 
country where the little mountain torrents were frequently 
named ; this stream had no distinctive appellation. It was 
not known by any name. They called it "a certain water." 
It was so. small that they came (s^») upon it before they ob- 
served it. They came upon it unexpectedly. This appears 
from the expression of delightful astonishment made by the 
Eunuch when he saw the water; "See, here is water;" 
(iSov vdup) or behold, water.* The stream was so small that 
it had no distinctive name ; it was not even known by the 
Ethiopian Eunuch. Indeed, the expression (<n u<5wp) in Greek, 
translated "a certain water," is diminutive, and elegantly 
expresses a small stream which had no distinctive name ap- 
propriated to it. In this little stream, the Eunuch could not 
have been immersed, unless a pit had been dug in the sand, 
or the water raised by a dam (d). It is not likely that he 
and Philip either dug a hole in the sand so large that when 
filled with water immersion could be performed, or erected a, 
dam across it so high that immersion might be possible. It is 
certain that God has left us no evidence in his word that 
they did or attempted to do either. Besides, if immersion. 

(a) See Un. B. Oic. Art. Jordan. &c. (b) This place is 60 miles south west of Je- 
rusalem, and about 20 from the Mediterranean Sea. (c) See Sacred Geography. *Act* 
8: 36 in Greek and English, (d) See Jerome on the passage p. 41, Sandy's Travels, 
B. 2, p. 142, and other travels through Palestine, 



Ch. 6, § 1.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 115 

had been necessary to baptism in the Eunuch's case, it would 
have been much more convenient for him to have gone to 
the Jordan, or to the river of Egypt, than to have prepared, 
in that little brook, a place in which he could have been im- 
mersed. It is therefore not at all probable that the Eunuch 
was baptized by immersion. (6.) The jailer " was baptized" 
in the Philippian prison. He had " thrust" Paul and Silas 
"into the inner prison," and "made their feet fast in the 
stocks." At " midnight" they " prayed and sang praises to 
God." By an earthquake " the foundations of the the pris- 
on were shaken." The " prison doors were opened." The 
jailer was alarmed ; " sprang in" to the inner prison where 
Paul and Silas were ; fell down before them ; " brought them 
out" of the inner prison ; enquired what he should do to be 
saved ; was directed to believe in Christ ; " the same hour 
of the night" he "washed their stripes — was baptized," and 
"brought them into his house."* From this account, it is 
evident that the jailer was baptized in the prison, though not 
in the cells into which Paul and Silas had been thrust ; and 
that after his baptism, he took them to his own apartment. 
It is not said or intimated that they went out of the prison or 
to a river. Nor is it probable that a jailer, under the Roman 
Government, would, at midnight, take his prisoners out of 
the prison-house to, a stream to be immersed by one of them. 
Moreover, it is certain that Paul and Silas did not go out of 
the prison that night. This is clear from the fact that they 
would not leave it the next morning, though permitted to do 
so, until "the magistrates — came and — brought them outf." 
If they had been out already without permission from the ma- 
gistrates, it would'have been mere trifling to refuse to come out 
again with their permission. Paul and Silas were not: guilty 
of such an inconsistency. Not the least hint is given us in the 
account that they passed the prison-gate till the magistrates 
came and brought them out. By doing this they publicly 
acknowledged that the imprisonment of Paul and Silas had 
been undeserved according to the Roman law. There is, 
therefore, no evidence that these servants of Christ took the- 
jailer to a river at midnight to baptize him, but positive ev-. 
idence to the contrary. Besides, not a word was said of a 
cistern in the prison. Indeed, to suppose that a government^. 

*Acts 16; fcl-3-t. fActs 16: 37-39. 



116 BIBLE BAPTISM. [B. II, P. I* 

cruel as that of Pagan Rome, would keep a bath in the pris- 
on to promote the happiness of those whom it often incarce- 
rated without a crime, and, in sport, tossed to the ravenous 
wild beast, would not only be improbable, but would crown 
the climax of absurdity. But since he was not taken out to 
a river, and since there is not the least probability that there 
was a cistern in the prison, it is exceedingly improbable that 
the jailer was immersed. 

2. It is not probable that the Jews always immersed them- 
selves before their meals. That they were accustomed to cer- 
emonially wash or baptize themselves before meals is clear- 
ly taught in the word of God. A "certain Pharisee besought" 
our Saviour " to dine with him. ; ' He accordingly " went in 
and sat down to meat ; and when the Pharisee saw it, he 
marvelled that he had not first washed" (s^a^T^r)) or bap- 
tized, "before dinner;" and again it is said of "all the 
Jews," " when they come from the market, except they 
wash," (/3a-T-jcrwv<rou) or baptize, " they eat not."* It was 
therefore the custom of the Jews to baptize or wash them- 
selves before eating their ordinary meals. It is by no means 
probable that they always or generally immersed themselves 
before they eat, or when they returned from market. Be- 
sides, the custom of the Jews was to wash or baptize them- 
selves for these their ceremonial purifications, in " water- 
pots of stone — containing two or three firkins apiece" t or 
less than twenty-five gallons each. There is not, therefore, 
the least probability that, when they washed or baptized 
themselves in these before their meals or when they came 
from market, the act of ablution was by immersion. 

3. Persons did not leave the place where they applied for 
baptism in order to receive that ordinance. This may be ea- 
sily learned from the facts relating to this point. Persons 
are oftened mentioned as being baptized in the same place 
where they heard the gospel. This was the fact with "both 
men and women" who were baptized ; of Paul, who " arose 
and was baptized ;" of "Cornelius — and his friends;" of 
" Lydia — and her household ;" of " the jailer and all his ;" 
of the twelve men who were " baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus;" and of John who "did baptize — and preach" 

*Loke 11: 37. 38, Mark 7: 3. 4 in Greek, f John 2: 6. 



Oh. 6, § 4.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 117 

in the same place.* As persons heard the gospel, believ- 
ed, and without changing their location, were baptized, it is 
certainly improbable that they were always taken away to 
some river, ponder cistern, to be immersed; and that this 
circumstance should not be so much as once mentioned in 
the word of God. If persons were always immersed for bap- 
tism, then there must have been water of sufficient depth for 
this purpose where they were immersed. This deep water 
must have been where they heard the gospel and applied for 
baptism, or they must have gone to some water deep enough 
for the purposes of immersion. There is no proof in the 
word of God or elsewhere that either was the case. Men 
who believe that for which they have good evidence, cannot 
believe without the least evidence that deep water was al- 
ways found at the very spot where persons asked to be bap- 
tized, or that they always went to places where such deep 
water was to be obtained. 

4. It is not probable that persons are required to be im- 
mersed in places where th?y are required to be baptized. 
Christ commands his ministering servants to "teach all na- 
tions, baptizing them".f All nations are therefore to be 
taught and baptized. It may be remarked then, (1.) that the 
inhabitants of Greenland, Iceland, Labrador, Norway, Lap- 
land, and other nothern regions, are to be baptized. In many 
of these countries, in order to immerse, a hole must be cut 
through the ice. This, in high latitudes, for more than half 
the year, is from ten to fifty feet thick. Moreover for months 
in succession, the cold is so intense, that in a very few min- 
utes, perhaps two or three, after a hole was cut in the ice, 
the water would again be frozen over. It is not probable 
that all adult persons, even delicate females, are required to 
be immersed in these bleak regions. Even in the more tem- 
perate climates of Europe, Asia and America (a), it is not 
probable that a merciful God would require weakly or sick- 
ly persons to be put entirely under water in extremely freez- 
ing weather. (2.) In many regions of Asia and Africa, wa- 
ter in sufficient quantities to immerse an adult person in, 
cannot be found in traveling hundreds of miles (a). It is 
certainly very improbable that Mercy would require persons, 

*Acts S: 12, and 10: 24. 47. 48, and 16: 14. 1.5. 33, and 19: 5. 7, Mark 1: 4. t^af. 
38; 19. (a) See the Geography of all these regions. 



118 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

especially the feeble or sick, to make a journey of several 
hundred miles merely to be immersed. But in all these 
countries, persons are commanded to be baptized. 

5. It is very improbable that those who were "baptized for 
the dead"* were immersed. This baptism for the dead is 
mentioned as a proof of the resurrection from the dead. In 
immersion a living person is put under the water. This 
could not prove that a dead person was to be restored to life 
by Almighty power. Besides, the original word (wrrsp) ren- 
dered "for" literally denotes "above." It is not probable 
that a cistern was made above the dead in which to immerse 
the living. It is very improbable, therefore, that living per- 
sons were immersed when they were baptized for or above 
the dead. 

6. Facts show that immersion is not, in alt probability, the 
only mode of baptism. (1.) // is a fact, that the claim of 
immersion to be the only mode of baptism, unchurches 
a very large portion of professing christians. Let a Uni- 
versalis!, a Unitarian, a Deist, an Infidel, a Pantheist, an 
Atheist, and the most devoted christian, present themselves 
at the Communion Table of many immersers ; and each 
would receive the same treatment. Each would be debar- 
red. Not one of them would be allowed to taste the crumbs 
that might fall from the Lord's table. And why is this de- 
voted christian put on a level with the Atheist ? Why 1 Sim- 
ply because he has not been immersed as a substitute for 
baptism ; because he has not taken that for the Divine ordi- 
nance of baptism, which is not so much as once named in 
the whole word of God. All professing christians, save the 
immersed, and even some of them, are thus unchurched. 
They are, so far as external ordinances are concerned, put 
by many immersers, on a par with Atheists. There are in 
the world more than one hundred and seventy-five millions 
of professing christians. Of these, about one million main- 
tain that immersion is the only mode of baptism. All these 
persons have or may have the same Bible. Nearly half of 
them profess to be guided by its instructions in all religious 
duties. Now, it is certainly very improbable that in a mat- 
ter, where the intellect only is concerned, but one out of 
more than a hundred, should be right, and all the others 

*lCor. 15: 29 in Greek. 



Ch. 6, § 6.] IMMERSION IMPROBABLE. 119 

wrong. And this must be the case, if immersion and that 
only, is baptism. (2.) It is a fact, that many of those de- 
nominations of professing christians, which do not admit that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism, require their public 
teachers of religion to be thoroughly educated men. They 
require them to be particularly well versed in Hebrew and 
Greek, the languages in which the scriptures were original- 
ly written (a). It is not probable that all these men, thor- 
oughly educated for the ministry, should be entirely mista- 
ken in relation to the mode of applying water in baptism. 
(3.) It is a fact, that no denomination which maintains that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism, does now, or ever 
did, require their ministry to be thoroughly educated men. 
Many of their preachers have not even a good English edu- 
cation. They frequently speak of learning in a minister as 
useless or even pernicious. It is not probable then that one 
such uneducated preacher should be wiser than ten, twenty, 
fifty or a hundred, educated men, in relation to the mode of 
baptism. (4.) It is a fact, that almost all errorists who bap- 
tize, adopt immersion as one of their modes, if not as the 
only mode of baptism. Errors are generally found in clus- 
ters. When therefore a number of uneducated errorists 
uniformly adopt immersion as their mode of baptism ; and 
more than ten times as many sound educated men, as uni- 
formly adopt a different mode, and turn aside from theirs ; 
it becomes exceedingly improbable that immersion is the on- 
ly mode of baptism (Z>). Indeed, among those who profess 
to take the word of God for their only rule of duty in reli- 
gious matters ; immersion for baptism usually assumes an 
importance in proportion to their love of human, instead of 
Divine authority, Accurate knowledge of the holy scrip- 
tures, and habitual obedience to the positive commands of Zi- 
on's King, are by no means distinguishing marks of most 
immersers. It is not probable therefore that a kw unedu- 
cated errorists, should habitually blunder on to the proper 
mode of baptism ; while large numbers of men of good judge- 

(a) Of those who are particularly stienuous in the education i.f their ministry, the 
Associate, the Associate Reformed, the Dutch Reformed, the Reformed Presbyte- 
rian Churches, &c, may be named. 

(b) Or errorists who adopt immersion as their mode of baptism, the Anabaptists, Sab- 
batarians, Dunkards, Free Will Baptists, Quaker-Baptists, rhrystians, Campbellites, 
Millerites, Mormons, Universalists, aijd more than thirty other classes, may be men- 
tioned. 



220 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. t. 

ment, extensive learning, scriptural piety, and of those who 
are conscientious in obeying God's commands in other re- 
spects, should adopt that for baptism which the scriptures do 
not sanction as such. If these thus act, they are substitu- 
ting the inventions of men for a Divine ordinance, and are 
therefore living habitually in the practice of solemn mocke- 
ry, if not of practical blasphemy I ! That this should be the 
case, is certainly improbable. (5.) It is a/act, that in the 
year 1607, forty-seven of the best linguists in England be- 
gan to translate the scriptures («). They had all the advan- 
tages to assist them in their work, that Great Britain could 
afford. They spent three years in completing the present 
translation of the word of God. In the whole of this trans- 
lation, they did not once say or intimate that the original 
word for baptize signifies immerse. They did not, in a sin- 
gle instance, give immerse as the only, or even as one mean- 
ing, of the original word (/3a<7r<n£w) for baptize. It is not 
probable that all these forty-seven men, should spend three 
years in translating the holy scriptures, and not ascertain in 
a single instance the only proper meaning of the word for 
baptize. It is not probable that they should all be mistaken 
as to the meaning of that one word. It is also equally im- 
probable that any one man should be so much wiser than 
these forty-seven, that without any thing like their advanta- 
ges, he should be more likely to ascertain the proper mean- 
ing of the word (/3cMrri£w) lor baptize than all these forty- 
seven men. It is not likely that one man even if he were 
wise, should be wiser than forty-seven of the wisest men that 
England could produce in the year 1607. Moreover, it is 
not probable that a man who does not know one of the ori- 
ginal letters from another, and who can scarcely read his 
mother tongue intelligently, should be more able to deter- 
mine the exact meaning of the original word (fSanrn^u) for 
baptize, than all these forty-seven together. Facts there- 
fore show that the notion that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism, is very improbable 

7. It is not probable that to baptize, a large quantity of 
water is necessary. Baptism is a significant ordinance (£), 
It symbolizes the work of God's Spirit on the souls of the 

(a) See M*rsh Eccle. Hist. 5th Ed. 1836, p. 334, 335. and other Eccle. Uists. (*i 
B.i,P.iv,Ch.l,§9. 



Ch. 7, § I.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 121 

truly converted, when, in regeneration, he applies to them 
the atoning blood of Christ. A large quantity of water is 
not necessary for this purpose. Neither scripture nor rea- 
son teaches that water enough to immerse the body is neces- 
sary to symbolize the purification of the soul from sin. It is 
not probable therefore, that this quantity is required or was 
always used for baptism. 

8. It is not probable that tables or couches upon which per- 
sons formerly reclined at meals, were immersed. These were 
so large that at least twelve persons might recline at once 
on one of them while they were eating together. The 
"washing" of these "tables' 7 is, in the original, expressly 
called (/3owr<rj0'|K,oi)£) the baptizing of them.* Now it is en- 
tirely improbable that these tables or couches (a) were im- 
mersed every time they were washed or baptized. It is there- 
fore utterly improbable that baptize always means immerse, 
or that immersion and that only, is baptism. 

CHAPTER VIL 

IMMERSION FOR BAPTISM IMPOSSIBLE. 

1. The Lord Jesus Christ would not require baptism to be 
administered in such a way as to destroy life. . To imagine 
that he would, is to suppose that he would act totally incon- 
sistent with his character. He "came not to destroy men's 
lives, but to save." He "was holy, harmless," and " unde- 
fined. " To imagine therefore that he would direct his min- 
istering servants to baptize in such a mode as to violate the 
command, " Thou shalt not kill,"f would be to suppose that 
he would act inconsistent with himself. That he would thus 
act, is impossible ; because to do so would be inconsistent 
with his Divine nature. The commission, "Go ye — and ' 
teach all nations, baptizing them," J includes persons in every 
state or condition in life. It therefore includes the sick, 
whatever may be their disease. To immerse or put entire- 
ly under water, especially in winter, those who are in cer- 
tain stages of some diseases (£), would destroy life almost as 

*See Mark 7: 4, John 13: 22. 23. 23 in Greek, (a) These were used for sleeping on 
at night and for eating from during the day. Hence they maybe called either tables or 
couches; see Greek Lexicons on (xXjvr)) and xXiVOJ.) fEx. 20:13. {Mat. 28; 1& 
(b) Such as the yellow, spotted, putrid and some other fevers. 



1*2*2 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

soon as poison. Humanity shudders at the very idea of kil- 
ling a sick person by immersion. And if that is the only 
mode of baptism, then immersers must destroy life by this 
act or some diseased persons cannot obey the command 
which requires them to be •'baptized. 77 To command all 
the sick in every stage of every disease and at any season 
of the year to be immersed, is manifestly inconsistent with 
the character of him who " will have mercy and not sacri- 
fice." He does not, in the cnse of any diseased person, dis- 
pense with obedience for a single day, whatever may be the 
degree or nature of his complaint. No person, however se- 
vere the cold may be, is authorized by the word of God to 
defer his baptism for any length of time, till his health is re- 
stored. In the scriptures no direction is given by which an 
individual is required, authorized or even permitted, to defer 
his baptism in consequence of disease. If it is impossible 
for believers in Divine revelation, to suppose that Christ 
would require his ministers to destroy life in the administra- 
tion of this ordinance, it is equally impossible for such to be- 
lieve that immersion is the only mode of baptism. The 
opinion that death has been caused or hastened and disease 
induced by immersion, is not mere theory. Instances are 
known where both these evils have resulted from putting the 
bodies of diseased persons and others under water for bap- 
tism. The command, ■• Thou shalt not kill," stands in the 
way, therefore, of the notion that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. 

2. It is impossible for a person to he immersed while stand- 
ing. Paul was directed to " arise and be baptized ;" and it 
is expressly stated that he " arose and was baptized. 7 '* 
To be immersed, a person must be laid down on his face or 
on his back in the water, and then thrust under the element ; 
or he must kneel down in it and be turned over forward till 
he is entirely covered with the water. Some immersers 
adopt one of these modes and some another, as their fancies 
or leaders may dictate. But none of them ever think of ri- 
sing up to be immersed ; this impossibility they have not yet 
attempted. , It is, therefore, as impossible for immersion to 
be the only scriptural mode of baptism, as it would be for 
Paul or others to be immersed while standing. 

*Acts 22: 16, and 9: 18. 






Ch. 7, § 3-4.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 123 

3. A person cannot be immersed by applying water to him. 
In every mode of immersion, and in every case, the person 
is applied to the water, and not the water to the person. No 
class of immersers, however their fancies may lead them 
into absurdities, have yet attempted to immerse persons by 
applying water to them. But wherever in the word of God 
this matter is mentioned, water is spoken of as being applied 
to the person baptized ; and in no one instance is the person 
represented as being applied to the water. John, it is said, 
" baptized with water"* (a) ; but in no instance is it said 
that he applied persons to or put them under the water. Pe- 
ter says, " can any man forbid water that" Cornelius and 
his friends "should not be baptized ?"f not, can any man 
forbid these to be put under water ? As water is applied to 
the person in baptism, and as it is impossible to immerse by 
applying water to any one, so it is therefore impossible for 
immersion to be the only mode of baptism. The use of the 
preposition with after the word baptize excludes the possibili- 
ty of immersion being the only mode of administering that 
ordinance. " With water" does not signify under water. 
The word with never denotes under or below the surface. 
When therefore God in his word declares that baptism M with 
water" was practiced, he teaches, by such language, that im- 
mersion was not the mode. Indeed, the language used shows 
that in such instances immersion could not have been the 
mode. The original word (sv) translated with, often denotes 
at, sometimes in, and occasionally it has other significations: 
but in the Greek language it does not signify below the sur- 
face or under water. When, therefore, it is said of a man ; 
he baptized (sv) "with water," it is certain that the language 
teaches that water is by him applied in baptism to persons, 
and not the persons to the water. It is also certain that to 
baptize "with water" cannot be immersion ; because to im- 
merse is not to baptize " with water." It is to put or have 
the person go entirely under that element. To those who 
are baptized "with water," the fluid is applied. Such bap- 
tism cannot be immersion ; for in this last the person is in- 
variably applied to the water, not the water to him. * 

4. It is impossible to immerse persons on dry ground. 

*Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16. John 1: 26. 33. (a) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 6. 
tActg 10: 47. 



124 BIBLE BAPTISM. [B. II, P. I. 

This is so manifest that no one ever thinks of making the at- 
tempt. Nor could any person who had no favorite scheme 
to defend, ever imagine it possible. to put an individual en- 
tirely under water on dry ground. The Israelites in esca- 
ping from Egyptian bondage passed through the Red Sea. 
God opened a passage for them. This must have been at 
least forty rods wide. This opening in the sea was " dry 
ground ;" from this the waters had retired and stood as a 
wall on either hand. Almost every conceivable form of ex- 
pression is used in God's word, to show that this opening in 
the sea, through which the Israelites passed, was not covered 
with water to the depth of a single inch. The fact that the 
ground on this opening in the midst of the sea was dry, is 
frequently stated. In six different places this opening on 
which the Israelites are said to have passed through the sea, 
is called "dry land ;" and in two others it is called "dry 
ground. 7 '* It is also said, in relation to this opening : " the 
channels of the sea appeared ;" God said " to the deep, be 
dry;" He "dried the sea' 7 — and "made the depths of the 
sea a way for the ransomed to pass over;" the " Red Sea 
was dried up, so he led" his people " through the depths as 
through the wilderness ;" they "went through the flood on 
foot f he " divided the Red Sea into parts ;" and speaking 
of the remnant of God's people, the prophet says of them, 
they shall go over " the tongue of the Egyptian sea — dry- 
shod — as — Israel — came up out of the land of Egypt."! 
This opening, therefore, in the Red Sea, through which the 
Israelites passed in escaping from Egyptian bondage, was 
"dry land" — " dry ground" — a " way" — like " the wilder- 
ness" — was "dry" — was " dried" — " appeared" to the eye ; 
and they went over it " on foot" — as they did " through the 
wilderness, dry-shod." No language can present more 
pointed proof that the Israelites "walked upon dry land in 
the midst of the sea." But while in the midst of the sea 
on this dry land, they "were all baptized" (s».c) "unto Mo- 
ses."! Here then the whole Hebrew nation were baptized 
on the "dry ground" on which they passed through the sea. 
But it is impossible to immerse persons on "dry ground ;" 

*Ex. 14: 16. 21. 22. 29, and 15: 19, Neh. 9: 11, Ps. 66: 6, Heb. 11: 29. *2 Sam. 22: 16, 
Josh. 4: 23, I sa . 44: 27, and 51; 10, Ps. 106: 9, and 66: 6, and 136: 13, Isa. 11: 15. 16. 
J I Cor. 10; 2. 



Ch. 7. § 5.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 125 

therefore it was impossible for these Israelites who were bap- 
tized on "dry ground" to have been immersed ; and conse- 
quently immersion, as the only mode of baptism, is impossi- 
ble. They were also baptized "in the cloud. 7 '* But before 
the sea was divided, " the cloud went from before — and stood 
behind them. 7 ' It thus "came between the camp of the 
Egyptians and the camp of Israel. 7 't In passing from the 
front to the rear of Israel's camp, the cloud " poured out wa- 
ter.' 7 ! J n ^ s wa y tne y were baptized " in 77 (sv) or with 
" the cloud' 7 (a). But to be baptized with water falling out 
of a cloud in drops, is certainly not immersion. And every 
one knows, that when a cloud pours down water, it comes in ' 
drops. Nor did the cloud return and spread itself over the 
Israelites, after they had entered the sea ; so that the cloud 
might be over them and the sea on either hand. There is 
not the' least intimation in the word of God, that the cloud 
was spread over the Hebrews while they were " in the midst 
of the sea. 77 But if it had been, this would have been a sin- 
gular kind of immersion. The walls of water, as Israel 
passed through the sea, were more than forty rods apart, and 
eighty feet or more high. Persons in the midst of this pas- 
sage would have been at least twenty rods from water, in- 
stead of being immersed in or put entirely under the fluid. 
Besides, at this very time, they were on "dry ground 77 and 
"dry-shod. 77 In such an immersion, a drop of water could 
not touch a person, except the exceedingly small particles of 
spray from the sea. If the Israelites, before they entered 
the opening made for them in the Red Sea, had been sur- 
rounded with the cloud, only particles of mist would have 
rested upon them. This baptism in or with a cloud, where 
only drops of rain or mist could fall on them, was such as to 
render immersion in that case impossible. As to immerse 
on dry ground, or with drops falling from a cloud is impos- 
sible, so this baptism "unto Moses 77 in (sv) or with "the 
cloud and in 77 (sv) or with " the sea, 77 could not possibly have 
been immersion. 

5. It is impossible for a person to immerse himself or be 
immersed in a vessel containing less than twenty-five gallons. 
It was the custom of the Jews to perform their ceremonial 

*1 Cor. 10: 2. fEx. 14: 19. 20. *Ps. 77: 17, (a) B. ii, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 6. 



126 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

purifications in stone " water-pots" — " containing two or 
three firkins apiece"'*(a). These might contain from one 
to twenty-three gallons each. Of these purifications of the 
Jews, it is said, ** except they wash" (/3a<r<n<j'ojv<ra») or bap- 
tize, as it is in the original, " they eat not." That the Jews 
were accustomed to wash or baptize before their ordinary 
meals, is manifest from the fact that the Pharisee "marvel- 
ed" because our Savior had not " washed," (s/3atf<ntff)'o) or 
baptized " before dinner."t Had the omission to wash be- 
fore meals been customary, the Pharisee would not have 
" marveled" when he observed the Lord Jesus Christ sitting 
down at the table without attending to this traditionary cere- 
monial observance. It is manifest therefore that the Jews 
were accustomed to wash or purify themselves ceremonially 
before they ate their ordinary meals. These their ceremo- 
nial washings are in the original expressly called ba'ptisms. 
When it is said of these purifications, they "wash" or 
" washed," the Greek word for baptize or baptized is used.t 
But they were accustomed to wash or baptize themselves in 
" water-pots of stone," containing, at the very most, less 
than twenty-five ga]\ons(a). That these baptisms or wash- 
ings were by immersion, is, therefore, as impossible, as it 
would be to immerse a full-grown man in a vessel containing 
not less than one, or more than twenty-three gallons. It is 
perfectly manifest that an adult person could not possibly be 
immersed in such a. vessel. But as the washing of adults in 
these water-pots, is called baptism, so it is perfectly certain 
that this baptism in these pots, not greatly exceeding in size 
a half-barrel, and perhaps much less, could not possibly be 
immersion ; and that, therefore, immersion cannot possibly 
be the only scriptural mode of baptism. 

6. Without a miracle, it zoould be impossible for one man 
to immerse Jive thousand persons each day for fire hundred 
days in succession. The time which intervened between the 
commencement of John's public ministry and its close, did 
not much, if any, exceed a year and a half. During this 
time, " Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan — were baptized of him." These, with those he 

*John 2: 6. (a) A firkin is a Greek measure. Its exact capacity i* not known. It 
did not however contain less than one gallon, nor more than seven and a half. Per- 
haps different, firkins were of different sizes. fMark 7: 4, Luke 11: 3S in Greek. 



Ch. 7, § 7.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 127 

baptized "in the wilderness" — "in Bethabara beyond 
Jordan," and in M Enon, near to Salim," # must, as the 
language indicates, include a very large portion of the 
inhabitants of that country. The whole population of 
that land, at that time, did not fall short of five mil- 
lions. John must have baptized at least one half of these. 
The language used cannot well express a less proportion. 
His public ministry continued about fivehundred. days. To 
have baptized two and a half millions in this short time, he 
must have baptized five thousand persons each day in suc- 
cession for the whole five hundred days. Without a miracle 
it was absolutely impossible for one man to have immersed 
this number, or even one thousand daily, for so long a time. 
But " John did no miracle ;"f and yet he baptized a " mul- 
titude," which would nearly or quite, or more than equal 
five thousand each day during his whole public ministry. 
John baptized more than it was possible for one man to im- 
merse while he was engaged in his ministry; therefore, that 
his baptism was by immersion is impossible. 

7. Twelve men could not immerse three thousand persons 
in about five hours. Peter "with the eleven" began his dis- 
course to the Jews "at the third hour of the day ;"J or about 
nine o'clock in the morning. After he had spoken some 
time, they said to him, " and to the rest of the Apostles, men 
and brethren what shall we do V Peter answered this in- 
quiry, and " with many other words," he exhorted them.§ 
How much time was spent in these discourses we are not in-. 
formed. But we cannot suppose that after all these exercises 
more than five hours of the day remained. Peter and "the 
eleven" are the only persons mentioned as being, on /this, oc- 
casion, engaged either in preaching or baptizing. There is. 
no evidence that the seventy disciples were there ; and* if 
they had been, they had no authority to baptize ; for Christ, 
when he sent them out, did not authorize them to administer 
baptism. (I In part of a day, these twelve baptized "about 
three thousand, "§ or about two hundred and fifty each. If 
these were immersed, and four minutes, a shorter- time than 
immersers usually occupy in performing the ceremony, be 
allowed to put each person under water, it would have requi- 

*Mat. 3: 5. 6, Mark 1: 4. 5, John 1: 28, and 3: 23. fJohn 10: 41. JActs 2: 14. 15. 
$See Acts 2: 37. 38. 40. 41. 42. Pee Luke 10: 1-11. 



128 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

red more than sixteen hours to have immersed the whole three 
thousand. Without a miracle, no twelve men could immerse 
three thousand persons in part of a day. In this case we have 
no evidence that a miracle was performed or was necessary. 
Immersers cannot deny that the three thousand were bapti- 
zed in part of a day ; for " the same day," they were receiv- 
ed into " fellowship 7 with the apostles.* According to most 
of them, the only door into christian fellowship and of the 
" breaking of bread"* in the Lord's supper, is immersion. 
That the three thousand therefore were baptized on that day, 
before or at the time they were received into fellowship, no 
exclusive immerser can deny or doubt. Besides, at or near 
u Jerusalem,"! where these three thousand were baptized, 
there is no stream, pond or brook, sufficiently large to im- 
merse an adult person in (a); and the hatred of the chief 
priests and other Jews to Christianity and to the apostles, 
would not allow them to permit the pools, (if they were deep 
enough, or the public cisterns, if any such existed and were 
suitable,) to be used for the administration of the ordinance 
of baptism. The Jewish rulers would not allow the apos- 
tles to occupy in peace, even their own private apartments 
for religious purposes.J Certainly then, these Jews would 
not allow them to use for such purposes, any water over 
which they could exercise control. It is therefore manifest, 
(1.) That, as these three thousand were all baptized in part 
of a day, and as it was impossible for them to be immersed 
by twelve men in so short a time ; so it is impossible for the 
baptism of these to have been by immersion. (2.) It was 
impossible for the apostles, at that time, to immerse at Jeru- 
salem even if they had been so disposed ; for the Jewish ru- 
lers who had just before " crucified the Lord of glory,"§ had 
then both the will and the power to prevent them from doing 
so. And those who so sincerely hated every thing holy, as 
they did, could not, consistently with their hatred, have, 
either directly or indirectly, encouraged the apostles in the 
practice of any part of their religious duties. (3. J At or 
near Jerusalem, there was no water deep enough to immerse 
in. To suppose therefore that the three thousand persons 

*Acts 2: 41. 42. fLnke 24: 47. 49, Act« 1: 4. 9. 12. 13, and 2: 1. 5. 14. 30. 38. 41 42. 
(a) See Sacred Geography. JSee John 20: 19. 26. §1 Cor. 2: &. 



Ch. 7, § 8-10.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 129 

added to the church on the day of Pentecost, were immers- 
ed is to suppose an absolute impossibility. 

8. To be immersed into death on the cross is impossible. 
Christ died on the cross. When therefore true believers 
" are buried with him by baptism into death ;" they are 
"baptized into" (sic:) "his death" on the cross.* It is im- 
possible for baptism into such a death to be immersion. 
Death on the cross is produced by elevating the person above 
the earth ; and in immersion, the person goes or is put en-* 
tirely under water. No two things can be more unlike than 
death by crucifixion and immersion. It is therefore impos- 
sible for that baptism which is into the death of Christ on 
the cross to be immersion. 

9. That baptism which is a figure of Noah's preservation 
in the ark, cannot be immersion. Noah and his family were 
preserved from being overwhelmed by the universal deluge, 
by being carried in the ark "on the face" or surface "of 
the waters,"f not by being immersed in them. The baptism 
then which is a " figure"! of their preservation, cannot be 
immersion. They were saved from being destroyed in the 
flood, because they were in the ark above the waters, not 
because they were thrust under their surfaoe(a). It is im- 
possible therefore for immersion to be the mode of baptism 
which figuratively represents the preservation of Noah and 
his family from the deluge. Immersion or going under wa- 
ter, cannot be a " figure" of sailing in the ark above or "on 
the face of the waters," What a wild fancy that man must 
have, who can suppose that being in the ark " on the face of 
the waters," is symbolized by putting the body of a person 
entirely under their surface ! ! 

10. That baptism which is a seal cannot be immersion. A 
seal never covers the whole, nor even the greater part of 
what is sealed. The size of a seal does not effect its binding 
force. Whether it is large or small, so long as it is a seal, 
its binding force remains the same. But if the whole or 
even the greater part of the instrument intended to be sealed 
is covered with the sealing material ; its validity, instead of 
being confirmed, would thereby be destroyed. To cover a 
deed or bond or mortgage or will, with wax or wafers, would; 

*Rom. 6: 3.4. tGen. 7: 18. \1 Pet. 3: 20.. 21. (aJSee Ch v 4, § 4-, 

9 



130 BIBLE BAPTISM. £b. II, P. 1. 

not confirm but destroy its validity. That to cover it thus 
with the sealing material would destroy the binding force of 
the seal, is too manifest to need farther illustration. Chris- 
tian baptism is a seal (a). It confirms the promise of bles- 
sings to the person baptized. As a seal cannot wholly cover 
the thing sealed; so immersion, as in it, the immersed are 
covered all over with water the sealing material, cannot be 
a seal to them. Immersion destroys the very nature of a 
seal; because in it the persons intended to be sealed, are en- 
tirely covered with the sealing material. It is impossible 
therefore for immersion to be that baptism which is a seal. 

11. Baptism "with the Holy Ghost 77 cannot be immersion. 
In immersion the body is put entirely underwater. In bap- 
tism " with the Holy Ghost,"* the Spirit of God operates on 
the soul in his regenerating power or in his miraculous gifts 
or in both(S). In regeneration, neither soul nor body is 
immersed; but in the subjects of this gracious operation a 
new nature, a new heart, spiritual life/all the christian gra- 
ces and affections, are produced by that " Divine power"'* 
which gives to God's people "all things that pertain unto 
life and godliness."! In baptism with the Holy Ghost, 
therefore, when the expression denotes regeneration, noth- 
ing like the entire submersion of either soul or body in water 
or in any thing else, is mentioned. No person surely, can 
imagine that the regeneration of the soul, is the immersion 
of the body. 

Baptism with the Holy Ghost, is an expression which also 
denotes his miraculous powers, especially the gift of tongues 
on the day of Pentecost. The disciples were thus " bapti- 
zed" not "many days" after the resurrection of Christ. t 
When they received this miraculous baptism ; "there came 
a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind and it 
filled all the house where they were sitting." "Cloven 
tongues" then "sat upon each of them" — "and they were all 
filled with the Holy Ghost," not immersed in the Spirit ; 
and then they " began to speak with other tongues as the 
Spirit gave them utterance."^ The apostles in this baptism 
were "filled with the Holy Ghost ;" and the cloven tongues 
or the fire or the sound "sat upon each of them." It was 

(a)See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § U. *Mat. 3: 11, Acts 1: 5, (b)See B. i, P. v, Ch.l, $ 2. \% 
Pet. 1: 3. JActs 1: 5. $Acts 2: 2-4. 



Ch. 7, § 12, 13.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 131 

impossible for them at that time to have been immersed 
in the Spirit ; because they were then filled with the Spirit 
or the Spirit was in them. Nor is it "said or intimated that 
they were entirely covered with the Spirit. The tongues 
sat upon them ; the sound like that of a mighty wind, came 
" from heaven" into the house ; so that into these there 
could be no immersion ; and if there was, it would not be 
immersion into the Spirit, but into sound or wind. But no 
man can imagine, that to be baptized with sound or wind, if 
such a thing was mentioned, is the same as to be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost. God, in no passage of his word, says 
any thing of baptism with sound or wind. Besides, they 
were not put into the sound or wind ; but the sound, like 
that of a rushing wind, came into and filled the house in 
which they were. As the sound or wind filled the house, 
the disciples might have been surrounded with one or both 
of these ; but this would be essentially different from im- 
mersion ; and it would be impossible for any person to sup- 
pose that sound or wind resting on them, was baptism with 
the Holy Ghost. When baptism with the Spirit, signifies 
his miraculous influences ; it simply intimates that God 
works miracles of some kind by the persons thus baptized. 
In this baptism, Divine power is exercised through those who 
are thus enabled to work miracles. But that the baptism in 
which the Spirit entered the apostles, or by which they were 
enabled to work miracles, or by the influence of which per- 
sons are truly regenerated, is immersion or the putting of 
the body entirely under water, is not only impossible, but 
absolutely absurd. 

12. Baptism "with fire" cannot be immersion. The ex- 
pression, " baptism — with fire"* when used of christians, 
may denote the purifying influence of the blood of Christ 
applied to the soul by the Holy Spirit in the work of sanc- 
tification. But whether this is or is not the true import of 
the expression ; it is certain that it cannot mean the immer- 
sion of the body in water. To baptize "with fire" 7 cannot 
signify to cover the body with water. Fire and water are 
opposite elements ; to be baptized with fire therefore cannot 
signify to be immersed or covered entirely with water. 

13. The baptism of our Saviour with sufferings in the gar- 

*Mat. 3: 11, Luke 3: 16. 



132 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

den of Getlisemane and on the cross, could not have been by im- 
mersion. The Lord Jesus Christ speaking of these suffer- 
ings, says ; " I have a baptism to be baptized with and how 
am I straitened till it be accomplished/'"* When he was 
suffering in the garden ; he said, "my soul is exceeding sor- 
rowful even unto death." Here " his sweat was as it were 
great drops of blood falling down to the ground." He "fell 
on his face" in prayer while enduring the wrath of God in 
behalf of sinners. t But in all this baptism with sufferings, 
there is nothing that resembles immersion ; nothing that ren- 
ders it possible that, in receiving this baptism, his body 
was entirely covered with water. No one can imagine that 
while he was baptized with suffering on the cross, his body 
was taken down from the tree and immersed in water. The 
baptism of Christ with sufferings could not then have been 
by immersion; because this his baptism was anguish of soul, 
not the application of water to the body. It is impossible 
for such a baptism to be by immersion. 

14. That which is indecent, cannot be the only mode of 
baptism. In Christ's kingdom "all things" must "be done 
decently and in order. "| But in immersion are many 
things so indecent that to them, modest females could not 
easily be induced to submit, if their minds were pointedly di- 
rected to them. A few of these may be noticed here. (1.) 
The immersed wade up to the waist in water. (2.) They 
are laid down flat in the water. (3.) The dress of females 
often floats on the surface of the element. (4.) The wet 
dress adheres to the limbs of females in a very indecent man- 
ner, while they are walking out of and returning from the 
water. Such indecent practices cannot be indispensable to 
an ordinance of Christ's church; where "all things" must 
"be done decently" as well as "in order." Many indecen- 
cies formerly practiced by immersers are too gross to be men- 
tioned here. 

15. That cannot be the only mode of baptism, which agi- 
tates the mind and renders it for the time unfit for serioits 
thought and solemn devotion. That immersion does this, 
every one knows who has been suddenly put entirely under 
water. By the act of immersing a person, his ears and nose 

*Luke 12: 50, See also Mat. 20: 22. 23, Mark 10: 38, 39. t>lat. 26: 36. 38. 39, Mark 
14: 3-2-33 , Luke 22: 44. $1 Cor. 14: 40. 



Ch. 7, § 16.] IMMERSION IMPOSSIBLE. 13$ 

are filled with water. During the time his head is below 
the surface, he cannot breathe. While this part of the cere- 
mony is in progress, the person can have no serious devo- 
tional exercises. The expectation of being submerged, agi- 
tates the person more or less. Wet garments must, after 
immersion, be removed and their places supplied with others. 
This always and almost necessarily follows immersion. All 
these and similar exercises are very far from being consist- 
ent with the solemnity of a Divine ordinance As therefore 
immersion agitates the mind, is inconsistent with solemni- 
ty and turns away the thoughts from God and devotion, at, 
and for a time after, the person is put under the water ; so 
it cannot possibly be, that Divine wisdom has adopted that 
as the only mode of baptism. God acts consistently with 
himself. He does not command men to offer him solemn 
service and devout worship, in that, the very performance 
of which destroys solemnity and devotion. If any person is 
not convinced that immersion does this, he can satisfy him- 
self of the fact by going suddenly under water. 

16. It is impossible for that baptism which denotes the Old 
Testament washings, to be immersion. These washings are 
collectively called (/SairTicf^oig) baptisms.* In the whole 
Old Testament scriptures, where these various ceremonial 
washings are very frequently mentioned, they are not once 
called immersions. When the mode of these is mentioned, 
it is not in any case said to be by immersion. For one who 
takes the word of God for his only rule in all religious du- 
ties, to believe that these baptisms which are never called 
immersions in Divine revelation, were always performed by 
immersion, is impossible. 

Moreover, it may be observed here, that all religious or- 
dinances of Divine appointment, are addressed to the under- 
standing, to the heart and to the conscience ; never to the 
imagination or to the fancy. It is a well known fact that 
immersion so operates on the imagination or fancy of the 
careless and prayerless part of a community, that they will, 
at almost any time, leave their other amusements to see a 
person immersed. Immersion therefore, since it is addres- 
sed to the imagination or fancy, cannot be one of those Di- 

*See Heb, 9: 10 in Greek. 



134 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

vine ordinances which are not addressed to either of these 
mental powers. 

Thus it is manifest that the word baptize is often used 
where it is impossible for it to denote immerse. It is there- 
fore absolutely impossible for a true believer in Divine reve- 
lation, after he has carfully examined this subject, to believe 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

ASSERTIONS AND QUESTIONS. 

1. Assertions cannot prove immersion to be baptism, or 
the only mode of baptism. If they could, proof in abundance 
on this subject would thus be furnished. That immersion is 
the only mode of baptism, is often asserted with as much as- 
surance, as if the declaration was, not only made, but fre- 
quently made, in the word of God. When the inquirer af- 
ter truth, takes the liberty of reading the scriptures for him- 
self, and does not find the word immerse used so much as 
once for any purpose whatever, in the whole of Divine rev- 
elation ; nor yet find it intimated in a single passage, that 
any person was put under water for baptism ; he feels as if 
attempts had been made to impose on his common sense. 
The assertions most frequently made by immersers on this 
subject, may here be noticed. (1.) They often assert, that 
the original word (/3owr<n£w) for baptize always signifies im- 
merse. But God in his word does not tell us that it always 
or ever has such a signification (a) ; so that on this point, 
we have merely their assertion instead of proof. This does 
not pass current with all persons as a substitute for Divine 
revelation. (2.) They often assert, that immersion is the 
principal meaning of the original word for baptize. But 
the word of God does not say this. It is mere assertion 
without proof. If however this were its principal significa- 
tion ; no evidence would thereby be furnished to prove that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism. If this assertion 
were true, (but it is not,) it would simply prove that immer- 
sion is one mode of baptism ; not that it is the only mode. 
(3.) It is often asserted, that immersion is the original mean- 
fa; See Ch, 1, § 7, 



Ch. 8, § 1.] ASSERTIONS ON IMMERSION. 135 

ing of the word baptize. By this expression, they seem to 
intimate that the Greek word for baptize originally denoted 
immerse and nothing else. But here again we have nothing 
but a bold assertion, totally destitute of truth. Besides, the 
word of God makes no such statement. (4.) It is often as- 
serted, that the root (/3acrrw) from which the original word 
(/3octf<n£w) for baptize is derived, always signifies immerse. 
But in the scriptures no such declaration is made. Moreover, 
the assertion itself is entirely destitute of truth. All these 
and similar statements are mere assertions without the least 
semblance of proof from the word of God. They are in 
fact only false assertions. (5.) It is stated, that Philip and 
the Eunuch went down into the water ; but it is not said that 
they went down under the water (a). When persons are 
immersed, they do more than go into, they also go or are 
put under the water. To go into the water is not to be im- 
mersed. Many persons go into the water who do not go 
under its surface. (6.) It is asserted, to prove immersion, 
that the Lord Jesus Christ, as well as Philip and the Eu- 
nuch, " came up out of the water; 77 but to come out of the 
water is not to come from under it (b). Many persons have 
come out of the water who had never been immersed, or 
been under its surface. Those who have been immersed 
come from under, not merely out of the water. Those who 
have been in or into the water one inch or six, come out of 
it. Those who have been immersed, come from under it, 
or from below its surface. (7.) It is asserted, that pious 
men believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
But pious men's belief is not Divine revelation. Besides, 
ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred or more pious men believe that 
immersion is not the only mode of baptism, where one be* 
lieves that it is. (8.) It is assorted, that learned men say 
that the original word (/3a<r<n£'w) for baptize, always denotes 
immerse. But these men are not God. The scriptures con- 
tain no such declaration. Besides, when a man makes such 
an assertion as this, either his learning on this subject, or 
his veracity will be questioned by every person who under- 
stands the original scriptures and has carefully examined 
that word. (9.) It is often stated that, if immersion is not 
baptism or the only mode of baptism ; then this ordinance is 

(a) See Ch, 3, % 2. (i) Sep Ch. 3, $ 3. 



136 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. L 

not mentioned in the word of God. It does not follow how- 
ever, that if immersion is not found in God's word, then 
nothing else is found there. Baptize or sprinkle may be 
found recorded in Divine revelation, though immersion is 
not. But if nothing was said in the scriptures concerning 
sprinkling or baptism in any mode ; this silence would not 
prove immersion to be the only mode of baptism. (10. It 
is frequently asserted that there is as much evidence in fa- 
vor of immersion, as there is in favor of any mode of bap- 
tism. If this were the case, it would not prove immersion 
to be the only mode of baptism. It would simply prove that 
it is one mode. But if, in God's word, there is no more 
evidence for baptism, than there is for immersion ; then 
there is none for either ; because it has already been shown, 
that, in the whole scriptures, there is no precept/br immer- 
sion, no example of immersion, no inferential evidence in 
favor of immersion, nor even an allusion made to immer- 
sion (a). But if " tekel"* (b) must be written on immer- 
sion by him who takes the word of God and that only for 
evidence in religious duties ; it by no means follows that 
baptism, in another mode, is equally unsupported by Divine 
revelation. 

Moreover, it may be remarked that the assertion so often 
made, that there is as much evidence, in the word of God, 
to sustain immersion as there is in favor of sprinkling, is 
not really the position which immersers are to prove. Their 
position is that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But 
if there is as much evidence in favor of sprinkling as there 
is for immersion, then sprinkling, according to this their 
own admission, must be a mode of baptism, sustained by as 
good evidence as immersion is. If this is true, then immer- 
sion cannot be the only mode of baptism ; and the assertion 
that it is such cannot be true. When he who asserts that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism, does not even at- 
tempt to present scriptural evidence to sustain his position, 
but affirms that there is as much evidence for immersion as 
there is for sprinkling ; he shows, by employing such sophis- 
try, that he is himself satisfied that God's word does not sus- 

(a) See Ch. 1, § 1-8, Ch. 2, § 1-4, Ch. 3, § 1-10, Ch. 4, $ 1-5. *P an . 5: 25. 27. 
(b) "Tekel" is a Chaldee word. It signifies, he is weighed. It also includes the idea 
of deficiency in what is weighed. 



Oh. 8, § 2.] QUESTIONS ON IMMERSION. 137 

tain his exclusive position. Besides, if it was expressly de- 
clared in the scriptures, that sprinkling is not a mode of bap- 
tism, even such a declaration would not prove that immer- 
sion is the only or even one mode of administering this or- 
dinance. If it was made, (but it is not,) it would simply 
prove that sprinkling is not baptism. But such a declara- 
tion would, by no means, prove that immersion is what it 
pretends to be, the only mode of baptism. It is often ima- 
gined that the preceding and similar assertions prove that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism. When men substi- 
tute assertions for proof, it is no wonder that they mistake 
falsehood for truth. 

2. Questions do not prove that immersion is baptism or the 
only mode of baptism. They only show the amount of know- 
ledge which the individual to whom they are proposed may 
possess or may wish to communicate on the subject to which 
they relate. The fact that an individual does not answer a 
question proposed to him, merely proves that he either can- 
not or will not do so. It does not prove that the question 
asked cannot be answered by others. It does not even prove 
that the question is a difficult one. If a person should as- . 
sert that the President of the United States received a salary 
of one hundred thousand dollars a year, he ought to prove 
the position he maintained by making such an assertion. 
But if when proof is demanded, the asserter in his wisdom 
enquires ; if he does not receive this sum annually, why does 
he commission so many naval officers % every person could 
perceive that this question could not prove his assertion to 
be true. It would be perfectly manifest that, whether this 
question was answered correctly or incorrectly, or not at all, 
the answer could not prove that the President received an 
annual salary of a hundred thousand or of twenty-five thou- 
sand dollars (a). It could not even prove that he received 
any salary. The answer to any one question or more can 
only prove the amount of knowledge possessed by the indi- 
vidual questioned. But to prove that any one person or 
more possesses a large or a small amount of knowledge on 
the subject of baptism, or on any other subject, cannot prove 
that immersion is or is not baptism or the only mode of bap- 
tism. To prove the exclusive claims of immersion, SOme- 
fa,) He receives twenty-five thousand dollars a year. 



138 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

thing more than asking questions, is necessary. Indeed, 
this plan of asking questions, instead of presenting positive 
proof, is a plan often resorted to by designing men to sus- 
tain, in appearance, a cause which they perceive, has, in 
reality, no support. They suppose the person cannot an- 
swer the question proposed to him. If they are right in this 
their supposition, they endeavor to leave the impression on 
his mind, that the proof of the position is therefore complete. 
If the first question they propose is answered correctly, they 
ask another, and thus continue on, till the person they are 
questioning discovers their intrigue or fails to answer. But 
it ought always to be remembered that asking or answering 
questions never proves any thing, but the amount of know- 
ledge possessed by him who answers them and the intrigue 
of such as propose them. On this point, they make an ap- 
peal to the real or supposed ignorance of the persons they 
question ; and then endeavor by that ignorance, if it exists, 
to sustain their position, instead of doing so by fair argument 
or positive proof. 

When immersers begin to see how utterly unfounded their 
exclusive claims are ; and how completely destitute they are 
of scriptural evidence to support their much-loved system of 
immersion as the only, or even as a mode of baptism ex- 
pressly taught in Divine revelation, they then resort to ques- 
tions. The}' enquire ; why did John baptize "in Jordan," 
or " in Enon" if he did not immerse 1 Why did Philip and 
the Eunuch go down into the water, if the latter was not 
immersed 1 Why did Christ, as well as Philip and the Eu- 
nuch, " come up out of the water, 77 if they were not immers- 
ed ? Now these questions, whether they are or are not an- 
swered correctly, cannot prove that immersion is or is not, a 
mode, or the only mode of baptism. To answer or not to 
answer these, and a thousand similar questions, would really 
prove nothing either for or against immersion. If, when 
these questions were asked, the person to whom they were 
proposed, should say that he could not answer them ; cer- 
tainly his ignorance on this part of the subject of baptism, 
would not prove that immersion is the only mode of admin- 
istering that ordinance. If he should attempt to answer 
them and fail to do so correctly, his failure could not possi- 



Ch. 8, § 2.] QUESTIONS ON IMMERSION. 139 

bly prove that immersion is baptism or the only mode of bap- 
tism. But if he answered them correctly, his knowledge on 
this point, would be as far from sustaining the exclusive 
claims of immersion, as his ignorance. Whether therefore 
the questions were answered correctly, or incorrectly, or not 
at all, there could be no evidence furnished by the answers 
to prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. All 
that the answers could possibly prove, would be the amount 
of knowledge which the person who gave them, could and 
would communicate on this particular subject. 

These questions are not answered in the word of God. 
The answers to them cannot therefore be a matter of im- 
portance in a religious point of view. They cannot be even 
a part of the religion of the christian ; for this plain reason; 
they are not recorded in the scriptures. What is not reveal- 
ed in God's book, is not, and cannot be made by man, a por- 
tion of the religion of christians. It is however, no difficult 
matter to find answers to these questions. But it ought to 
be remembered, that whether they are answered right or 
wrong, or not at all, no proof can be furnished by the an- 
swers in favor of immersion being the only mode of baptism. 
John baptized in or at the Jordan, " with" its waters,* in 
order that " the multitude, 77 who came to his baptism, might 
have water with which to refresh themselves and their beasts. 
He baptized " in Enon,' 7 not because the water was suffi- 
ciently deep to immerse persons in, but because there was 
"much 77 of it "there. 77 The word "much 77 does not ex- 
press depth, but number. This is one meaning of the word 
in English and deep is not. The original word (tfoXXa) for 
much, very frequently expresses number and never depth. 
It literally signifies, and is usually translated " many. 77 This 
word '"'many/' 7 generally, if not universally, indicates num- 
ber. W T hen " the Lord' 7 said of Athens: "I have much 
people in this city, 7 ' the word " much' 7 certainly expresses 
number. In this and the other passage, the same Greek 
word is used.t In one passage it is used in the singular, and 
in the other it is in the plural number. The fact that " in 
Enon' 7 water boils up out of the ground in a number of pla- 
ces («), and a small rivulet runs from each, so as to unite in 

*Mat. 3: 6. 11, Mark 1: 8. 9, Lvtke 3: 7. 16. jJohn 3: 23, Acts IS: 9. 10 in Greek and 
English, (a) See Sacred Geography. 



140 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. I. 

a little reservoir a few inches deep, from which a very small 
brook flows, is another evidence that the word " much" is 
expressive of number, not of depth. From these small 
springs, man and beast might easily be refreshed with drink. 
But in not one of them, could an adult be immersed, unless 
the water was raised by some artificial means ; and there 
is not the least hint that any thing of this kind was done or 
attempted. John baptized at Enon then, not because there 
was deep water there to immerse adults in ; but because 
there were (uoara tfoXXa) many waters or several small 
springs there, from which those who came to be baptized, 
might easily obtain water to drink. It may be farther ob- 
served that there is no intimation in this passage that this 
" much water' 7 was necessary for, or that it was used in, 
baptism. Besides, one person at one and the same time, 
could not use (ydara tfoXXa) many streams or places of wa- 
ter in administering baptism in any mode whatever. Philip 
and the Eunuch went down to, towards or into (a) the water 
for the sake of convenience. They stepped out of the chari- 
ot, and down to or perhaps a few inches " into'"' the water, 
that Philip might readily obtain so much of the element that 
with it he might baptize the Eunuch. They cameyromthe 
water, or if they went a few inches into it, then they came 
out of it (b), not from under its surface, that they might re- 
turn to the chariot. Jesus Christ came from the water, or 
if he had stepped a few inches into the edge of the Jordan, 
he came out of not from under its waters (c), that he might 
retire into " the wilderness"* and then " finish" the remain- 
der of his "work" on earth.f Thus these questions which 
are so often proposed, are answered. But whether they are 
answered right or wrong, is a matter equally indifferent so 
far as immersion is concerned. If the answers are correct, 
immersion is not thereby proved to be the only mode of bap- 
tism ; nor is that point proved, if each answer is totally in- 
correct. The answers prove neither more nor less than that 
the author of them has and chooses to communicate, a cer- 
tain amount of knowledge on these particular parts of the 
subject of baptism. From these remarks it is manifestly an 
undeniable fact, that questions, however answered, or if not 

(a) See Ch. 3. § 4. (b) See Ch. 3, § 5. (c) See Cb. 3, § 7. *Mat. 1: 1, Mark 1; 
10. 12. 13. fJohn 17: 4. 



Ch. 1, § !•] IMMERSION EXAMINED. 141 

answered at all, cannot prove immersion to be baptism, or 
the only mode of baptism. 



PART SECOND. 

HUMAN AUTHORITY RELATING TO IMMERSION. 

CHAPTER I. 

LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES ON IMMERSION. 

1. Greek Lexicons (a) do not teach that immersion is the . 
only mode of baptism. Whatever these teach, it should be 
remembered, is only human wisdom. The instruction which 
they contain, is, in fact, no authority in a Divine ordinance. 
Whether therefore they do or do not teach that immersion 
is a mode or the only mode of baptism, is not material. The 
word of God and that only can decide with authority as to 
the mode of baptism. Each of the principal Greek Lexicog- 
raphers (b) teaches that the original word (/3oMr<n£w) for bap- 
tize has a great variety of meanings. Seven of the princi- 
pal authors (c) who have made it their business to explain 
the meaning of Greek words, give together, more than for- 
ty different significations to the Greek word (/3a<7r<n£w) for 
baptize. The whole of them present the following as the 
true signification of the original word in the various connec- 
tions in which it is used by different writers. It denotes, 
they say, to purify, wash, sprinkle, dip, immerse, submerge, 
plunge, sink, depress, humble, overwhelm, bathe, paint, be 
dejected, cleanse, baptize, saturate, perform ablution, imbue 
largely, cleanse ceremonially, soak thoroughly, receive bap- 
tism, be baptized, bestow liberally, confound totally, drench 
with wine, be immersed, overwhelm with any thing, admin- 
ister the rite of baptism, procure one's own baptism, receive 
the gifts or miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, be im- 
mersed in a sea or flood of afflictions, endanger one's life, to 

(a) Lexicon is the name usually given to a book which explains the meaning of 
words in the Greek and Hebrew languages. 

It is worthy of observation here that a few years ago, immersers were accustomed to 
admit that the Lexicons were against their exclusive notions -, (See Dr. Miller on Bap- 
tism.) Now, and for the last eight or ten years, they assert that all, or all the principal 
Lexicons sustain their system ; (See Bliss on Baptism.) That they were formerly right 
in relation to the Lexicons will be manifest to those who examine this subject, (b) 
Writers of Lexicons, (c) See the Greek Lexicons written by Grave, Pickering, 
Greenfield, Schleusner, Uonnegan, Schrevelius, and Parkhurst. 



142 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. II, P. II. 

die, bind to the performance of some duty* impose obliga- 
tion by baptism, receive the rite of baptism, be baptized to 
any one, bind one's self to honor, obey and follow any one, 
be "initiated by the rite of baptism, be prodigal towards one, 
be immersed in or overwhelmed with miseries, oppressed 
with calamities, wash with water in token of purification 
from sin or spiritual pollution, immerse repeatedly into a 
liquid, voluntary reception of baptism, and dip in a vessel 
and draw. Several of these meanings, it will be seen, are 
nearly synonymous. ' They are all that are given by seven 
of the principal Greek Lexicographers. Nor is it known 
that any other Greek Lexicon will add any thing of impor- 
tance to these significations. Certain it is, that no other 
Lexicon will add any thing more to what these say on the 
subject of immersion. The original word (/iW-ri^w) for bap- 
tize has however a number of other meanings (a), though 
the Lexicons do not mention any more. These Greek Lex- 
icographers, it is manifest, do not teach that immersion is 
the only signification of the original word for baptize ; nei- 
ther do they intimate that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism. Four of them (Z>) clearly teach that in the New 
Testament, the original word (8a<rr<ri£ ) u) for baptize, does 
not signify immerse ; and these alone of the seven distin- 
guish between its meanings in the New Testament and in 
other books. Two of them (c) explain the original by Latin 
words. To define the Greek word (/3a<7r<n£w) for baptize, 
they use the Latin words (baptizo) for baptize, (?nergo) for 
dip, (abluo) for wash, and (lavo) for lave, sprinkle or draw 
out. All these Latin words are used in common by both 
these writers to express the meaning of the Greek word for 
baptize. One of them (d) gives no other meaning to the 
word. He does not therefore use {imnvrsio, immersus or 
immergo,) a word which evidently denotes immerse as even 
one of the meanings of that (/3a<7r<n£w) for baptize. The other 
(e) adds the word (immergo) the word for immerse, (intingo) 
that for dip in, and (jmrgo) that for purge. These seven 
Lexicons are therefore very far from supporting the exclu- 
sive claims of immersion. Four out of the seven definitely 
teach that the word (/3a7r<n£w) for baptize does not, in the 

(a) See Ch 2, $ 4. (b) Parkhurst, Pickering, Oreenfield and Schleusner. (c) 
Schleusner and Schrevelius. (d) Schre%'elius. (e) Schleusner. 



Ch. 1, § 1-] IMMERSION EXAMINED. 143 

New Testament, signify immerse. One of these four does 
not give this even as a definite meaning of this term (/3cctf- 
«gw ;) the other three do not say whether it does or does 
not, in the original scriptures, signify immerse ; and not one 
of them so much as intimates, that this is the only, or even 
the principal meaning of (Bairn? u,) the original word for 
baptize. These authors therefore furnish no evidence to 
prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Besides, 
from the meanings which these principal Greek Lexicog- 
raphers give to the original word for baptize, it is evident 
that its general signification is fourfold. According to them, 
it denotes, (1.) The application of water ; as when it is 
used to signify iua.sk, sprinkle, Sfc. (2.) It is used when 
water may or may not be used ; as when it denotes to 
cleanse, saturate, overwhelm, &c. (3.) It is used when the 
idea of water applied in any way, is not included in its mean- 
ing ; as when it denotes to paint, depress, humble, bestow 
liberally, and the like. (4.) It denotes to drink largely ; 
as when it implies to drench or physic with wine. These 
are the significations which the best Greek scholars give of 
the word (/SoMfn^oj) for baptize, instead of saying that it al- 
ways denotes immerse or the submersion of what is baptized 
entirely under water. 

These same writers inform us that the word (/Satf-rj^w) 
for baptize is derived from another (/3a<r<rw) which signifies, 
to dip, dip in, sprinkle, tinge, sink, wash, wet, moisten, 
bathe, steep, imbue, dye, stain, color, plunge, immerse, sub- 
merge, draw out water by dipping a vessel into it, fill by 
drawing out of one vessel into another, temper metals by 
immersing them in water, draw up, fill by drawing up, and. 
to be lost as a ship. This word, it appears, does not always 
signify immersion, any more than the original one(/3a<7r<n£w) 
for baptize. Like its derivative ( ; oa<7r~i^w) it has a large 
number of meanings. It is used (1.) Where water is appli- 
ed ; as when it denotes to wash, wet, sprinkle, and the like. 
(2.) It is used when water is not applied ; as when it denotes 
to color, dye, stain, &c. (3.) It expresses destruction wheth- 
er by water or otherwise ; as a ship may be lost or wrecked 
on a rock as well as be foundered at sea. It is undeniably 
certain, from the various meanings of the word (/3a<7r<n£w) ' 



144 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IB. 

for baptize, and also from those of ((3urfru) the root from 
which it is derived, that immersion is far, very far, from being 
the only signification of the word baptize, as given in the 
Greek Lexicons. It is moreover, from the same evidence, 
equally manifest that immersion cannot be the only mode of 
baptism. 

2. Latin Dictionaries do not teach that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism. The principal writers of Latin Dic- 
tionaries^) inform us that the word (baptizo) used in that 
language for baptize, denotes to baptize any one, to wash in 
a baptismal font(Z»), to sprinkle, to initiate into the christian 
religion, and to initiate a person into a christian assembly. 
But they do not represent immerse as being even one mean- 
ing of the Latin word for baptize ; and much less do they in- 
timate that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 

3. French and German Dictionaries do not sustain the ex- 
clusive claims of immersion. The French Dictionaries(c) 
explain baptize to mean, to christen, to administer the sacra- 
ment of baptism; and the German explain it by a word (taufen,) 
which signifies to christen, to baptize. These Dictionaries 
do not even intimate that immersion is ever one of the sig- 
nifications of the word baptize(d). They cannot therefore 
be said in truth to inculcate the sentiment that immersion is 
a mode, or the only mode of baptism. 

4. Other Gothic languages do not tench that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism. In the Dutch language, a word 
(doopen) is used for baptize, which denotes to sprinkle, dip, 
pour or baptize. It is used in connection with a preposition 
which signifies with, not in or under. The Greek word 
(/3atfn£w) for baptize when translated into the Dutch lan- 
guage is used in a variety of senses, besides those here men- 
tioned. But to immerse, or to go or be put entirely under 
water is not definitely mentioned as one of its meanings. It 
denotes to apply water to the person baptized ; not to apply 
the person to the water. To sprinkle is mentioned as one 
of its definite significations. The Dutch do not use their 
word (doopen) for baptize which signifies to sprinkle, to de- 

(a)See Ainsworth's,Leverett's, &c, Dictionaries. (b)TMs is a stone vessel which 
contains the water for baptism. It is found in many Episcopal Churches. It contains 
but a few quarts. It is used for sprinkling or pouring, not for immersion. (c)See Boy- 
er's, Nugent's, Meadow's &.c, Diet.. (d)See Turner's, Hurst's, Fosdick's, &c,. Dic- 
tionaries. 



Ch. 1, § 5. J DICTIONARIES ON IMMERSION. 145 

note immerse. In their language a different word is em- 
ployed for this purpose. It is therefore certain that (doopen) 
the Dutch word for baptize signifies to sprinkle ; and it is by 
no means certain that it ever denotes immerse. It is mani- 
fest therefore that the word (doopen) used in the Dutch lan- 
guage for baptize, does not sustain the notion that immer- 
sion is the only, or even a mode of bapt-ism(a). The other 
Gothic languages give no more countenance to the exclu- 
sives than the German and Dutch. In the Meso-gothic lan- 
guage or dialect the word (daupian) for baptize, denotes 
to sprinkle, to apply water to a person in baptism. The 
Saxon word (dyppari) for baptize, also the Swedish (dopa) 
and the Danish (dobe) for baptize, all have the same signi- 
fication^). Each of these v/ords for baptize denotes to sprin- 
kle, to apply water to a person in baptism. In these lan- 
guages these words are used in no other sense ; nor are they 
used for any other purpose. Another word is used in each 
of them for immerse. The preposition with which each of 
them is connected excludes the possibility of immersion be- 
ing the meaning of any one of the words used in these lan- 
guages for baptize. This preposition is the word for with. 
These people all speak of baptizing with water, none of 
them of baptizing in or under water. Besides, they all bap- 
tize by sprinkling or pouring ; none of them by immersion. 
Even the Mennonite Baptists of Holland have baptized by 
pouring for more than a hundred years(c). These people 
certainly understand the meaning of the words in their own 
languages as well as immersers in England or America do. 
These Gothic languages therefore do not teach that immer- 
sion is even one mode, much less that it is the only mode of 
baptism(Z>). 

5. English Dictionaries do not inform us that the word 
, baptize always denotes immerse. The principal of these (d) 
inform us that the word baptize signifies to christen, to ad- 
minister the sacrament of baptism. By one of them(e) to 
plunge, to apply water as a sign of admission into the church, 
are added as other meanings of the word. The term bap- 

(a) See Rev. W. Brakel's works Rotl. Ed. 17. v. i, p. 952 as quoted bv Rev. J. B., 
Ten Eyck, of Berea, N. Y., Dr. Henderson. (b)\h. Henderson; Ch. In. No. 550, 
(c)MiWer. (d)See Johnson's, Walker's, and Webster's Dictionaries., (^SeeWeb* 
sier's duodecimo Dictionary printed in 1806.. 

10 



146 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

tism, they say denotes; (1.) The application of water to a 
person as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he 
is initiated into the visible church of Christ ; (2.) The suf- 
ferings of Christ. (3.) So much of the gospel as was preach- 
ed by John the Baptist. In one of these Dictionaries(a) bap- 
tism is mentioned as a washing or sprinkling with water ; a 
holy ordinance and sign of admission into Christ's church. 
A noted one(b) teaches that baptize means to wash, to sprin- 
kle, to dip, to immerse. English Dictionaries do not there- 
fore teach that baptize always signifies immerse, or that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism. 

6. Writers of Concordances(c) do not teach that iinmersion 
is the only mode of baptism. In these are frequently collect- 
ed the various meanings of important words found in the 
scriptures. The principal one of these(d) says that baptism 
is, (1.) An outward ordinance or sacrament wherein, the 
washing with water, represents the cleansing of the soul 
from sin by the blood of Christ, 1 Pet. 3: 21; (2.) An in- 
ward, spiritual washing whereby the gifts and graces of the 
Spirit, signified by the outward sign, are really and actually 
bestowed, Mat. 3: 11 ; (3.) The sufferings of Christ, where- 
by he was consecrated and prepared for his entrance upon 
his kingly office, Mat. 20: 22, Luke 12: 50; (4.) So much 
of the gospel as John the Baptist taught his disciples when 
he baptized them, Acts 18: 25. In all this, immersion is 
not so much as mentioned as one mode of baptism. It is not 
once even named as a meaning of the word baptize. It is 
certain therefore that immersion is not here represented as 
being the only or even as being one mode of baptism. 

7. Hebrew Lexicons do not teach that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. The word baptize is not found in the He- 
brew language. The word (i^ 1 ^) translated into Greek 
by (Batfrw) the root from which (Ba-7r<n£w) that for baptize 
is derived, and once by (Ba<7r<n£w) the one for baptize itself,* 
signifies to dip in a small part, to wet, dye, sprinkle, wash, 
plunge in the ditch, &c(e). But it does not, in the Hebrew 
Bible, signify to put the body entirely under water. In one 

(a)See Webster's duodecimo Dictionary printed in 1P0G. (7>,)Calmet. (d)\ con- 
cordance is a book in which the leading words of ihe Bible are so arrangf-d that differ- 
ent passages of scripture can easily be found. (d,)Cruden's. *--ee 2 Kings 5: 14 in 
English and Hebrew, and called, 4 Kings iu Greek. (e,)See Simon's and Eichorn's Ileb. 
Lex. See also Cocceius. 



Ch. 1, § 7.] DICTIONARIES ON IMMERSION. 147 

hzxicon(a) it is defined by the words "dip in" and "im- 
merse," but not by language which necessarily carries the 
idea of being entirely covered with water. Hebrew Lexi- 
cons do not therefore teach that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. 

Of more than twenty of the principal Dictionaries and 
Lexicons in eleven different languages, not one sustains the 
notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism. Not 
one half of them mention immerse as one of the meanings of 
the word baptize ; nor do those among them which give this 
as one of its meanings, intimate that they use it to express 
the action of putting a person under water and then immedi- 
ately taking him out again. Not one of them teaches that 
when he gives immerse as a meaning of the word baptize j 
he intends by it to express the idea of putting a person un- 
der the surface of water. And this is by no means the ne- 
cessary or only meaning of the word immerse(5). Not one 
of them gives the least intimation that this word (Bocrrj^oo) 
expresses the two parts which are essential to immersion, 
and which are invariably performed when a person is im- 
mersed. These are (1.) Putting that part of the person not 
already wet, entirely under water; and (2.) Taking him up 
again. Both these are always performed in the ceremony 
of immersion. . No one can therefore say with truth, that 
immersion is, in the Lexicons and Dictionaries, represented 
as being the only mode of baptism. It is not even certain, 
from what they say, that they intend to teach that the word 
baptize ever denotes any part of what is done in immersion. 
It is true, that some few of them, say that one of its mean- 
ings is immerse ; but these do not inform us that they then 
or always use this word to denote the putting of a person un- 
der water. Had they done this ; they would have definitely 
shown what they supposed the word does mean, when they 
give immerse as one of its significations. But the writers of 
Dictionaries, whatever idea may be attached to the word im- 
merse, when, it is, in some few instances, used by them as 
one meaning of the word baptize, do not sustain the exclu- 
sive claims of immersers. They do not altogether, nor 
does any one of them, teach that the word baptize always 
or necessarily signifies immerse. They do not teach that 

COGibbs'. (b)Ch. 3, $ 4. CO See B. i, P vii, Ch. 1, $ 4. 



148 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

this is its original or primitive meaning. Nor do they inti- 
mate that immersion is the only mode of baptism. For this, 
many immersers and all the exclusives contend. This, in 
fact, is the point disputed. But it would be much more easy 
to prove that immersion is not a mode, than that it is the only 
mode, of baptism. More than one half of the principal Dic- 
tionaries and Lexicons, in eleven different languages, teach 
that immersion is not baptism, by not giving that as one of 
its meanings ; while not one of them teach or intimate that 
this is its only meaning, or that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. Some of the best of them teach that immersion 
is not baptism, or that the word baptize does not signify im- 
merse ; but none of them intimate that it is the only or even 
the principal meaning of the word baptize; or that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism. The exclusive claims of 
immersers cannot therefore be sustained by the Lexicons 
a-nd Dictionaries. 



CHAPTER II. 

WRITERS RELATING TO IMMERSION. 

I. Where the word baptize is used in the Apocrypha, it 
does not teach that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
Judith, it is said, " washed herself in a fountain," (sQa<fri?c- 
co — 6*1 tvj.c Trriyng rou vtfarog) literally she baptized herself at r 
over or on the spring or well of water(a). The same pre- 
position (cttj) which is used here, is used where it is said of 
Christ, "he sat" — (s<m) "on the well ;" and also in the ex- 
pression, 6 « he shall reign" (sttj)' 4 over the house of Jacob."* 
In that country springs or wells did not usually contain a 
sufficient quantity of water to immerse adults in(£). More- 
over the Greek word (stf») does not denote under nor convey 
the idea of immersion. A participle (Bwx<n%o}xevog) from the 
same word is used to indicate the ceremonial washing of a 
person who had touched a dead body(c). The mode of per^. 
forming this purification was not by immersion. It was al- 
ways by sprinkling. f In the Apocrypha therefore immers- 
ers can find no support for their exclusive system ; no proof 

(a)See Judith 12: 7 in Greek and English. * John 4: 6, Luke 1: 33 in Greek. (b)See 
Sacred Geography. Cc;See Ecclesiasticus 34: 25 in English or 31: 30 in Greek, in 
which language the hook is called The Wisdom of Sirach. |See Hum. 19: 11. 18-20. 



Ch. 2, § 2.] GREEK WRITERS ON IMMERSION. 149 

that immersion is the only mode of baptism or the only mean- 
ing of the Greek word for baptism. 

2. Greek writers do not countenance the notion that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism. Many early christians 
wrote in Greek. Some Jews also wrote in that language. 
These, as well as the heathen natives of Greece, have left 
many works written in Greek. A considerable number of 
these remain to the present day. In some of these works, 
the word (bwhti^u)) for baptize frequently occurs, and in 
others it is more rarely found. But so far are these writers 
from using that word uniformly to denote immerse ; that 
they very seldom, if ever, use it in such a connection as ne- 
cessarily requires it to have that signification. The word 
(BottfTi^w) for baptize does not in Greek writers, in one in- 
stance in a thousand, if at all, necessarily signify to put en- 
tirely under water. Nor has it been found, in a single pas- 
sage in any Greek author, to have the least allusion to the 
two-fold action performed in immersion ; that of putting the 
body entirely under water and immediately taking it up 
again. These writers do not therefore teach or intimate 
that immersion is the only or even a mode of baptism. Be- 
sides, this word (Ba^r^w) is often used in the works of the 
best Greek writers in such connection as to render immer- 
sion as its meaning impossible. Moreover, no one of them 
uses, as a substitute for baptize or to point out its significa- 
tion, either of the words (s(x/3atf<rw or s^/3a<7r<n£6j) which fre- 
quently denote one part of what is done when persons are 
immersed. It may also be remarked that no one of these 
writers uses, for this purpose, even the word (<W<rw) for dip 
or that (#uvw) which signifies to go or move into or under 
any place or thing. These men do not therefore give us 
the most distant hint by which we can infer that the word 
(BaTr'T^w) for baptize always denotes immerse ; or that this 
is even one of its definite significations. The most that can 
be fairly inferred from their language is that this word may 
sometimes or may possibly, in some expressions used by 
them, denote a very small part of what is done by immers- 
ers as a substitute for baptism. But even in those passages 
in which this word is so used that it may possibly denote 
that what is mentioned was entirely covered with water; 



150 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

still the connection by no means renders this meaning ne- 
nessary. The sense will not be injured by giving the word 
a different signification. It ought also to be remembered 
that these Greek writers who thus use the word (bcctFti^w) 
for baptize, were either natives of Greece and spoke its lan- 
guage as their mother tongue ; or they understood it as well 
as if they had been born and educated in that land of song 
and of science. These masters of the Greek language(a), 
do not show by their writings, that the word (Ba<7r<n£w) for 
baptize at any time certainly signifies to put entirely under 
water ; but they do show that it cannot always denote any 
one thing that immerse ever signifies. They frequently 
use it where immerse cannot be its meaning(&). 

3. Pedobaptist(c) lorkers do not hold or teach that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism. Immersers frequently as- 
sert this ; but to sustain this assertion they have not the least 
shadow of evidence whatever. They sometimes affirm that 
Henry, Doddridge, Scott, and others, teach that immersion 
is the only mode of baptism. But no one of these, or in- 
deed any other Pedobaptist writer of any note, and probably 
not one of any kind, does now, or ever has taught that im- 
mersion, and that only, is baptism. Immersers have so al- 
tered Henry's exposition of the Bible, as to make it say 
many things which its own author did not say, or teach, or 
believe. But by all these alterations, they can scarcely 
make that old saint's writings help to build up their exclu- 
sive system. Indeed, they have not yet named a single Pe- 
dobaptist writer, good or bad, wise or unwise, who has sus- 
tained their exclusive notions. Those they have named are 

(a)See Dyonysius, Basil, Polvbius, Diorlarus Siculus (Bks. 1 a«d 16) Josephus, Ho- 
mer (O.hs. 9.) "Euripides (Hecuba Art. iii.) Theocritus (I.lyl. v.) SUabo (Bks. 13 and 
16,) Dion Cassius (Bk37,) lleliodorus (Ethiopia Bk. i,) Eschylus, Eusebius, &c. 

fi) In Homer's (BaTpap£OfAUOjUL<Xyia) battle of the frogs and mice.it is said, 
when the fr<g Camhophagus was killed; "the lake" (sQwrTTSTO) "was baptized with 
the purple blood of the frog." Thi« battle was on the verge of a snail lake» In the 
contest a frog is said t<> have been killed. His death occurred either in the edge of the 
water; or his body must, while bleeding fresh, have entered the lake. This lake was 
some miles in circumference; and the elegant Greek poet. Homer, <ays, the lake was 
baptized wiih the blood of this frog. Only a very small portion of the water in this 
lake was tinged Of stained with or had the blood of this frog-warrior ai plied to its sur- 
face. The whole lake could not have been immersed in or put entirely under the blood 
"of one frog. Even an immerser, however ignorant or prejudiced he might be, would 
hardly say that the wrd baptize here means immerse. But if it always means im- 
merse, as immersers confidently assert, then this lake (poor thing.' !) must have been 
put entirely under theblo.id of his frogship. 

(c) Pedobaptist is one who believes in the baptism of infanta. 



Ch. 2, § 4.] GREEK WRITERS ON IMMERSION. 151 

very far from sustaining their position. Besides, with all 
their boasting on this point ; it is believed that they cannot 
name one Pedobaptist writer who now does, or ever has, 
maintained the opinion, that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism. While several of them admit, that baptism may be 
administered by immersion as well as by sprinkling ; it is 
not known that any among them denies the validity of the 
ordinance when administered in this last named mode. 
Moreover it is not known that an individual among them 
teaches in his writings or in words that immersion and that 
only is baptism ; or that immersion is essential to the ordi- 
nance of christian baptism. To assert therefore that Pedo- 
baptist writers sustain the doctrine that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism, is a crime which will not here be named. 
Immersers cannot, on this point, even appeal to the Greek 
church for support ; for, though that church, among its other 
deviations from the word of God, generally practice the in> 
mersion of their infant children ; yet there is no evidence 
that they maintain the exclusive notion that nothing but im* 
mersion is baptism ; but there is positive evidence to the 
contrary. 

4. In Greek writers the word for /baptize, its root, and their 
compounds, have a variety of meanings not usually mentioned 
by Lexicographers. Some of these may be noticed here. 
The various significations given in the Lexicons to the 
Greek word (Ba<7r<n£w) for baptize, and to (Bowrrw) the one 
from which it is derived, have already been mentioned (a). 
Some others, from Greek authors, will here be presented. 
The reader, especially if he has an accurate knowledge of 
the Greek language, will readily perceive the propriety of 
these significations, from the connections in which the words 
are found. The principal meanings of these words which are 
not mentioned in the Greek Lexicons, are (1.) To wet a ve- 
ry small part. It is said of the priest when preparing to 
cleanse the leper ; " he shall take" the living bird, and the 
cedar-wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip 
them — in the blood of the bird that was killed."* It is evi- 
dent from this and other passages of scripture, f that the 

(a) See Ch. 1, §1. *Lev. 14: 6, 51 in Greek. fSee Ex. 12: 22. Lev. 4: 6. 17 and 9 : 
9 and 14: 16, Mum, 19: 13, Dent. 33: 24, 1 Sam. (called in Greek 1 Kings,) 14: 27, in the 
Greek translation of the Old Testament, and Luke J.6: 24 in Greek, 



152 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, F. II, 

Greek word (BctTrrw) translated dip, signifies to wet a very- 
small pait of what is dipped. (2.) To extend to, toward or 
near to : as in the passage " he that" (s/x/oa-^ap) "dippeth 
his hand with me in the dish — shall betray me."* As it 
would be inconsistent with common propriety for each of 
two persons to immerse or put a hand entirely under the 
food in a dish out of which they and others were eating, or 
even to put any part of their hands into the food ; so the 
meaning of the word here translated dip, must be to extend 
to, towards or near to the dish out of which they were re- 
ceiving food. (3.) To touch; as in the passage " the feet 
of the priests" — (g/Ja^tfav) " were dipped in the brim of the 
water" of the Jordan. t Their feet were not in the water 
but in the brim of it, or at its very edge ; that is, their feet 
merely touched the water. (4.) To put in the edge. An 
elegant Greek writer says; " a smith to harden an iron 
hatchet" (Bowrrsj) " dips it in cold water («); that is, he dips 
the edge, not the whole tool into the water. (5.) To stab, 
pierce or run through. It is said, "the child" (Ba^si) 
" shall run his sword into the viper's bowels 7 ' (b). So small 
a reptile as a viper may be stabbed or pierced with the point 
of a sword ; but it would be impossible to cover a sword en- 
tirely in its body. (6.) To transfer from one pot to anoth- 
er in any way. A master says, " my servant" (Bowr^si) 
" shall dip me a cup of honey" (c) ; that is, he shall trans- 
fer the honey from the vessel which contains it, to a cup to 
be carried to the master. (7.) To swim as a bladder. It is 
declared, "the bladder" (Bcwrri^Tj) "can swim, but to sink 
is not the law" of its nature (d). It may swim, but can- 
not sink, of itself. (8.) To be embarrassed with debt. The 
same writer says of a certain character (e), he (Bsfiair- 
rufpsvos) " is embarrassed with debt to the amount of fifty 
millions of drachms" (/"). He who is thus deeply in debt 
must be embarrassed with it ; but it does not entirely cover 
his body or put it under water. (9.) To be up to the mid- 
dle (g); (10.) up to the breast (A) ; (11.) up to the head 

*Mat. 26:23. t Josh. 3: 15 in the Greek Bible, (a) Homer, (Odvs.9.) (b) Lycophon 
in Cassandra, ver. 1121. (c) Theocrytus Idyl. 5. ver. 126. (d) Plutarch ; the ntigi- 
nal is acTxocT /3a<7rr«^7), dwai So Tot OU^SfJUCT £g"|. (e) Plutrarchof Otho. (f) 
A dram, drachm, or daric, whs a Persian coin ofpold. It was worth about five dollars 
and a halt. His itelrt therefore was about 275 millions of dollars, lie must have beeu 
a believer in the credit system, (g) Strabo. (h) Polybius. 



Ch. 2, § 4.] GREEK WRITERS ON IMMERSION. 153 

(not over it) in water (a). (12.) To sweep away as an over- 
flowing stream (£). (13.) To lay on as taxes. (14.) To 
overflow as water does when the tide rises (c). When this 
takes place water comes upon, or overflows the land. In 
this case, the whole land is not covered, nor even every part 
of the beach, with the water of the rising tide. Nor is that 
part of the land which is then covered, plunged into or put 
entirely under water or immersed ; but the water comes up- 
on the land. (15.) To be drunk (d). (16.) To adhere- to 
(c). (17-) To Improve the mind (e). (18.) To terrify.* 
(19.) To stain. A Latin writer (f) says, "what the Greeks 
express by 75 (Ba<r<nrj'fAocr) "baptize, we," Romans, " express 
by to stain." (20.) To habituate. A Greek philosopher 
(c) says of a young man ; "the youth" (s/3a<x<ntfa<ro) " ha- 
bituated himself to sophistry." (21.) T> ruin as a city is, 
when it is destroyed (g). (22.) To suffer, as is intimated 
in the declaration of our Saviour when he says ; " I have 
a" (Batfritf/xa) "baptism to be baptized with, and how am I 
straitened till it be accomplished. "t The sufferings of Christ 
were mainly in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross. 
None of them were by immersion. This baptism then of 
which he here speaks, could not possibly have been by put- 
ting his body entirely under water. To the significations of 
the words under consideration, many others might be added, 
besides those here mentioned. Not one of these, it will be 
observed, is immerse. Indeed, it would be very difficult, if 
not impossible, to find the word (Ba7r<n£w) for baptize, or its 
root (BctT-rw,) so used as necessarily to denote the entire sub- 
mersion under water of what is said to have been baptized. 
When one of these words describes a ship as sinking or sunk 
in a river or even in the ocean, it by no means follows, that 
every part of the vessel is entirely under water. Indeed, por- 
tionsof a sunk or wrecked ship, are generally above or floating 
on the surface of the water. When either of them denotes to 
drown, it is manifest to all, that this effect may be produced by 
the head or even the face of the person drowned being in the 
water. After examining only a considerable number of the 
meanings of the word (Ba<7r<n£w) for baptize, who, in his so- 
ber senses, can believe that it always signifies immerse 1 

(a) Porphyry, (b) Diorlorns. (c) Plato, (d) Aristotle, (e) Marcus Antoninus. 
*Isa. 21: 4in'Greek. (f) Xylander. (g) Josephus. t-Lake 12: 50 in Greek. 



154 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

CHAPTER III. 

CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS RELATING TO IMMERSION. 

1. The Greek Church does not sustain the exclusive sys- 
tem of modern immersers. This Church extends over near- 
ly twenty countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. Its mem- 
bers, at least thirty millions in number, speak more than for- 
ty different languages and dialects. The religion of this 
Church consists of a multiplicity of ridiculous ceremonies. 
Its members and preachers are generally ignorant, bigoted 
and superstitious. It is called the Greek or Eastern Church, 
not because its members speak or understand the Greek lan- 
guage ; because very few of them do either ; but in opposi- 
tion to the Latin or Western Church. For baptism they 
usually immerse each of their infant children three times. 
The example of the Greek Church cannot therefore favor 
the practice of those who refuse to baptize infants and who 
immerse only once for baptism. Besides, there is no evi- 
dence that the Greek Church maintains that her immersion 
or any other, is the only mode of baptism. Indeed, there is 
positive evidence to the contrary. Some parts of this Church 
baptize occasionally, if not frequently, by sprinkling (a). 
Of those who do so, several classes might be mentioned (#). 
They also " frequently," but not always, "re-baptize the 
Latins who embrace their communion (c). Moreover, it is 
said (d), th it the Greek Church practices effusion after im- 
mersion. This Church, therefore, burdened as it is with 
absurd practices, instead of conforming to the word of God, 
does not countenance the notion that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. But of such authority, even if it did sus- 
tain him, the intelligent christian would be ashamed. 

2. A very large portion of the Denominations into which 
the christian world is divided, reject the notion that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism. The thirty millions con- 
nected with the Greek communion who, while they usually 
immerse, do not hold that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism, need not here be mentioned. Nor is it at all ne- 
cessary, in order to swell the amount of human testimony 
on this subject, to name the more than seventy millions of 

(a) See Salt's account of a baptism in Abysinia ; also, Eusebius. (b) As the Abysin- 
ians, Maronites, &c. (c) See Toumefort's Voyage, Vol. I. (d) By IJeylingius. 



Ch. 3, § 3, 4.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 155 

Romanists who invariably sprinkle in what they call bap- 
tism. Without these, the evidence from human testimony 
that immersion is not the only mode of baptism, is complete- 
ly overwhelming. Of at least sixty-five millions of Protes- 
tants, more than sixty-four millions uniformly deny that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism. This they constantly 
do both in principle and practice. Many of them do not at 
any time immerse persons for baptism. Indeed, among Pro- 
testants, the more biblical knowledge and scriptural piety 
any denomination of christians, has, the less is, usually, if 
not uniformly, their regard for immersion even as one mode 
of baptism. Of all the Protestant denominations, less than 
one person in a hundred rejects baptism with water entirely; 
and about the same proportion hold that immersion is essen- 
tial to baptism. When more than sixty millions of Protes- 
tant christians, many of whom are confessedly men of exten- 
sive scriptural knowledge, and devoted piety, reject immer- 
sion as the only mode of baptism, the fact becomes manifest 
that most of the professedly christian world turn aside from 
and refuse to sustain the exclusive claims of immersers. 

3. Some denominations of immersers admit that immersion 
is not the only mod-t of baptism. One of these, the Sabeans 
of Syria, call themselves Daily Baptists and disciples of John 
the Baptist. Another, the Baptists of Holland, are called 
Mennonites, after Menno Simon, one of their early cham- 
pions. These last have for more than one hundred years, 
laid aside immersion. Both these, as well as the Greek 
Church and some others, admit that sprinkling is baptism ; 
though some of them habitually practice immersion. This 
proves that truth can find its way, a little at least, into some 
minds, notwithstanding the blinding influence of supersti- 
tious bigotry. 

4. The most bigoted of the exclusives do not, in fact, teach 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. After showing 
from what the word (Bairn^u) for baptize is derived, they 
affirm that it signifies *' to dip, plunge, immerse, imbue, 
drench, soak and overwhelm." Now these words are not 
synonymous. They do not all denote the same thing. If 
all the meanings of the original word (Ba<7r<n£w) for baptize 
are accurately given by them, (but they are not,) then it has 



156 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

more than one signification, immersers themselves being 
judges. But if this word has more than one meaning, then 
there may be more than one mode of baptism. This will 
certainly be the case, unless in the word of God, one mode 
is specially mentioned. But so far as the use of this one 
word is concerned, according to their statement, dipping is 
one mode of baptism ; plunging is another ; immersing is 
another ; imbuing another ; drenching another ; and so on. 
The words used by immersers to express the sense of the 
original word for baptize, have various significations. To 
dip is used (I.) where no fluid can be supposed to exist ; as 
44 to engage in an affair, to engage as a pledge, to enter 
slightly, to choose by chance, to drop by chance into any 
mass (a). A man dips into a book, when he becomes slight- 
ly acquainted with its contents. The dipping-needle is said 
to dip, when it moves from a perpendicular towards a hori- 
zontal position (b). The word dip therefore may be proper- 
ly used where a single drop of water is not present. (2.) 
It denotes also "to put into any liquor, to moi ten, to wet" 
generally a small part (a) (c). When a swallow dips in 
the pool, it wets the tips of its wings in the water. To plunge 
signifies u to put into any state suddenly, to hurry into any 
distress, to force in suddenly, to fall or rush into any hazard 
or distress, to put suddenly under water" (a). These are 
the principal meanings of this word. It is said of a horse, 
he plunges into a river, when he is forced or leaps into it 
carelessly, though his legs only are covered with the water. 
A man plunges into sin, when he engages in it with reckless 
perseverance. A stick is plunged into a liquid, or a sword 
into a man, when only a part of the stick or sword enters. 
To imbue is " to tincture deep, to infuse any tincture or 
dye" (a) ; and to infuse denotes to instil, infuse by drops or 
bring in imperceptibly ; that is, to fall into or upon any- 
thing in very small drops, or to sprinkle. To drench is 4 'to 
soak, to steep, to saturate with drink or moisture, to physic 
by violence" (a). When a man is drenched or physicked 
with drink, the liquor is in him, not he in the liquor. To 
soak is " to lie steeped in moisture, to enter by degrees into 
pores, to drink — intemperately, to macerate in any mois- 

(a) See Walker's Dictionary, (b) See Brewster's New Philosophy of Matter, (e) 
Ch.2, § 4, par. 1. 



Ch. 3, § 5.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 157 

ture, to steep, to keep wet till moisture is imbibed, to drench-, 
to drain, to exhaust" (a). A log may be soaked in water 
for years and not sink below the surface in all that time. 
To overioheim is " to crush underneath something violent 
and weighty, to overlook gloomily" (a). If stones, or earth, 
or a heavy rain, or sand, should, in large quantities fall on 
a man, he would be overwhelmed. But to force him against 
or even under any of these, would not overwhelm him. Ta 
immerse is "to sink or cover deep, to depress," as well as 
"to put under water" (a). When therefore immersers 
themselves define the word (Batfn^w) for baptize, they do 
not teach that immersion, in their sense of the term, is the 
only mode of baptism. Even the inelegant Latin word [im- 
mersio) modified into immerse, in the use of which they take 
so much delight, is not exclusively confined, either in Latin 
or English, to one meaning. When the significations of the 
words used by immersers to define the original one (Batf- 
<n£w) for baptize, are accurately examined, they teach that, 
among other things, it denotes to wet a small part, to de- 
scend, to touch water, to sprinkle, to fall upon, &c. Strange, 
that men with'such -language on their lips, should still insist 
that in baptism, the person must always be put entirely un- 
der water ! 

5. Immersers do not pretend that the word baptize expres- 
ses the whole of what they do in immersion. The action which 
they perform in immersion, is eight-fold (b). Two parts of 
this action are so essential to it, that it cannot exist without 
them. These are putting the parts of the person not before 
wet, under water, and taking him up out of it again (&). No 
immerser pretends that the word (Bairr^w) for baptize, or 
its root (Ba<7r=rw,) always and necessarily denotes both these 
parts of immersion. They do not pretend that baptize ever 
expresses them both. Immersers, with all their learning, 
and ignorance, and learned ignorance, have never pretend- 
ed to discover in the Greek (Ba<7rri£w) or English word 
baptize, but a very small part of what they do in immer- 
sion. If the word baptize always signified to put entirely 
under water, instead of seldom or never having that mean- 
ing ; even this would not authorize them to perform all the 
other parts connected with immersion. They would not 

(a) See Walker's Dictionary, (b) See B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, § 4. 



158 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

thereby be authorized to perform even the two parts which 
are indispensable to it, and without both which, it cannot ex- 
ist. If "compliance must be so, and no more, and no less, 
and no otherwise" («), and this principle seems to be correct, 
then in immersion, they do not render obedience ; for they 
do more than they pretend the word (Ba<7rr»^w) for baptize 
ever means. If they will neither do more nor less, than 
what they say the word means, then they will not wade into 
the water or raise up the person after he is put under its sur- 
face. To do this, is to do more than what the word means, 
according to their own assertions in relation to the original 
term. They do more than they say it means ; and there- 
fore, as they themselves decide, do not render obedience. 
They do not practice according to their own rule. They do 
not conform, even in a tolerable degree, to what they say 
the word signifies. The word for baptize in Greek, is very 
far from ever denoting even the two essential parts of the 
action performed by them in immersion (o), and much less 
the whole eight parts, of which this action is usually compo- 
sed. It may be well doubted whether any word in any lan- 
guage has this complicated signification (c). When the 
word (BaTTTi^w) for baptize, or its root (BaTrrw,) or any oth- 
er word in the Greek language, does not signify the whole 
or even the greater part of what they do in immersion ; how 
absurd to talk of that being the only mode of baptism! ! 
When this word (Bcmtti^w) in the scriptures is not once de- 
finitely used to denote any part or even any portion of any 
part, of what is done in immersion ; to expect an intelligent 
believer in Divine revelation, who has examined this subject, 
to believe that immersion is the only mode of baptism, is to 
suppose that such a person can believe without evidence. It 
is to fancy him to be an infant in intellect ; or that he can 
be made to take assertion for proof. 

6. Immersers do not put the person immersed entirely under 
water. The person himself generally, if not always, wades 
or enters into the water some distance. In this way, a con- 
siderable part of the subject is, by his own act, covered or 
wet with water. The part which is thus wet, is immersed 

(a) See Pedo. Exam, by Mr. Boothe, Vol. I. (b) B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, § 4, par. 4. 5. 
(c) This compound idea, or even the two-fold idea that is essential to immersion, is not 
attached to any word in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, Cbaldee, Ethiopic, Arabic, 
French, Spanish, Italian or English. 



Ch. 3, § 7.] DENOMINATIONS ON IMMERSION. 159 

by himself, not by the preacher who immerses the remain- 
der of the body. The subject performs one part of the im- 
mersion ; the preacher the other. It is manifest therefore; 
that, since the administrator immerses but one part of the 
person immersed, only one part of him is properly immers- 
ed, unless he has a right to immerse one part, while the 
preacher does the other. Besides, this semi-self immersion 
is not performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost. Now if a man without authority, can, in no name, 
perform properly this half immersion of himself; he might, 
one would suppose, on the same grounds, immerse himself 
without the preacher's assistance. If the preacher only has 
a right to immerse, and if he must perform this act in the 
name of the Trinity ; then that part of the body which the 
person himself immerses in no name whatever, cannot be 
properly immersed ; for that part is not immersed by the 
preacher ; is not immersed in the name of the Trinity. 
Since, when a person is immersed ; the immerser puts only 
a part of the body under water ; he, if immersion was bap- 
tism, could be only half baptized. It is a wonder that the 
advocates of the opinion, that for baptism, a person must be 
put entirely under water, do not take up the subject and, af- 
ter holding him above the surface, at least for an instant, so 
that all present might see that he was fairly out of it, put him 
entirely under its surface. By doing this, they would act 
according to their professed principles. But none of them 
do this. None of them usually, if ever, put more than a part 
of the immersed under water, the other part being immersed 
by the subject himself. It appears therefore that if to be 
baptized, a person must be put entirely under water, then 
modern immersers in western Europe and in America only 
half baptize their followers. 

7. In being immersed, a person is seldom entirely in con* 
tact with the water. His clothes are generally put entirely 
under water by himself and the operator ; and usually most 
parts of them are wet. But where the dress is tight, espe- 
cially round the waist ; the water does not and cannot pene- 
trate through the garments, during the moment they are un- 
der the water. This partial wetting, immersers admit to be 
baptism. If the washing or wetting of the whole person is 



160 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. II. 

essential to baptism ; then very few of the immersed, par- 
ticularly of those who wear the over-dress(a), are baptized. 
But if water applied by a minister to a part of the body, in 
the name of the Trinity, is baptism; then sprinkling, as this 
is water thus applied to a part of the body, must be baptism. 
If it be said that the intention of the parties renders this par- 
tial application of water, valid in their case ; it may be re- 
marked that if this Romish principle will answer in their 
case ; it may, at least in their estimation, answer as well in 
the case of those who intend to administer baptism by sprink- 
ling. It is manifest therefore that, both in theory(Z>) and 
practice, immersers, notwithstanding their loud professions 
to the contrary, admit that water applied to a part of the 
person, or, which is the same thing in fact, that a part of the 
person applied to the water, is valid baptism. By their own 
admissions and practices therefore, their exclusive system 
is overthrown. 



CHAPTER IV. 

SEVERAL MATTERS OFTEN SUPPOSED TO RELATE TO IMxMER- 
SIOX. 

1. In the early ages of the church, washing preceded bap- 
tism. This washing was sometimes partial and sometimes it 
extended over the whole person. At first it was practiced 
for the sake of cleanliness. The subject, occasionally at 
least, was washed in a state of entire nudity(c). Immers- 
ers and even others, sometimes mistake this washing for bap- 
tism. But where it existed, it always " preceded and was 
really distinct from the ordinance of baptism. It had not 
necessarily, in fact,any more connection with that sacrament 
than a washing to remove bodily defilement at the present 
day, would have with baptism. The writers who mention 
this washing(cZ) sustain this position. Some of them do this 
very clearly, and others less so. This practice may have 
originated in persons supposing that a literal washing for 
cleansing was intended by such language as the following: 

(a) An over-dress is a dress which many modern immersers put on over their other- 
clothes when they are put under the water as a substitute for baptism, (b) § 4. (e) 
See Robinson's and Wall's Hut. (d) See Cyprian, Augustine and other ancient wri- 
ters. 



Ch. 4, § 2.] CLAIMS OP IMMERSION. 161 

"Ye are washed;" — "our bodies washed;" — Christ — 
cleansed the church "with the washing of water;" — the 
washing of regeneration;"* and the like. But the washings 
here mentioned were ceremonial or spiritual. If they were 
spiritual, then they could not be performed with water ; for 
spiritual cleansing or the removing of the guilt or pollution 
of sin from the soul cannot be effected by applying water to 
the body(a). If they were ceremonial, then they were or 
might have been performed by sprinkling, as ceremonial 
washings usually, if not" universally were.f But the practice 
of washing before baptism, whatever might have been its 
origin, cannot sustain the notion that immersion is the only 
mode of administering that ordinance. 

This washing which was sometimes partial and sometimes 
extended over the whole body, preceded the ordinance of 
baptism. Though it constituted no part of that sacrament, 
yet it soon became invested with a kind of superstitious re- 
gard. In the third century, it was viewed as a general pre- 
requisite to baptism ; so much so that many persons main- 
tained, that before the ordinance was administered either to 
infants or adults, the person to be baptized ought to be first 
washed. But still this washing was in reality no part of the 
ordinance of baptism. It is very possible however, indeed 
it may be probable, that some persons becoming more igno- 
rant, bigoted and superstitious than others, occasionally sub- 
stituted this washing in the room of baptism. But even this 
substitution, if it did at any time take place, could not change 
this washing into baptism. However, in after ages, immer- 
sion, among ignorant and superstitious men, may have re- 
ceived some countenance from these superstitious washings. 
But if they had, at their first origin in the third century, been 
substituted for baptism ; they could not, even in that case, 
prove that immersion was then the only mode of baptism ; 
for these washings were not baptism and were often partial. 

2. Ancient monumental pictures and engravings do not 
teach that immersion is the only or even a mode of baptism. 
More than fifty of these have been preserved. These have 
come down to the present day. The motto on some of them 
is in Greek ; that on others is in Latin. They mark the 

*1 Cor. 6: 11, Heb. 10: 22, Eph. 5: 26, Tit. 3: 5. faJSee P. i, Ch. 4. § 5, B. i, P. iv, Ch. 
1, § 16. jSee Lev. 14: 7. 16, 27, Num. 8: 7, and 19: 4. 13. IS. 19. 20, Heb'. 9: 13. 19. 21. Sec. 
11 



162 Bible baptism. [b. ii, p. ii. 

mode of baptism from about the year A. D. 300, till A. D. 
1100(a). They were made by different artists in different 
ages and countries. To ascertain the meaning of these pic- 
tures and engravings, a person has only to open his eyes. 
They speak a language which all can understand. In these 
the person who baptizes is, in no instance, represented as 
being in the water when he administers the ordinance. Nor 
do we find the least intimation in the word of God, that John 
or any other person, stood in the water while he adminis- 
tered baptism. In this then, as well as in other points, these 
monuments of antiquity agree with Divine revelation. In 
all these, the water is represented as being applied to the 
person, not the person to the water. The person baptized 
is sometimes represented as standing nearly or quite up to 
the waist in water, and sometimes as standing in a bath; but 
he is much, more frequently represented as standing during 
his baptism, on the ground or on the floor. In not one in- 
stance however is he represented as being put under the 
water for baptism. It is moreover manifest from these 
monuments that standing in the water formed no part of 
the ordinance of baptism ; because if this was a part of it ; 
then the ordinance could not have been, as it often was ac- 
cording to these representations, administered while the per- 
son baptized was standing on the ground or on the floor. 
Since some of those whose baptism is represented in these 
monuments of antiquity, were baptized while entirely out of 
the water, as the representations themselves clearly show; 
being in the water, could not in their case have been an es- 
sential part or indeed any part of their baptism. As these 
representations do not show, or intimate that a single person, 
during the ages in which they were made, was immersed 
for baptism ; so they do not, cannot teach that immersion is 
the only mode of administering that ordinance. These plain 
speakers then, whose language defies criticism, do not give 
testimony in favor of immersion. 

3. The marble font in the cathedral at Syracuse in Sici- 
ly, does not show that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 
(b). It is said(c) that this font was used by Marcion who 
lived about the year A.. D. 200. But its existence about the 

(a)See note (a) B. iii. P. ii, Ch. 2, § 5, for authorities. ($,) See Sicilian Inscriptions, 
Class 17, No. 1. (c) By Taylor and others. 



Oh. 4, § 4.] CLAIMS OF IMMERSION. 163 

year A. D. 300, is certain. It is small, has two handles, is 
about twelve inches deep, may contain about two gallons, 
and has on it an inscription in Greek, which, in a ^ree trans- 
lation may be rendered into English thus; \* Zosimus(a) de- 
dicates to God this sacred vase for the purpose of holy bap-- 
tism"(Z>). Certainly in this baptismal font, adult persons 
could not have been immersed. The existence of this ves-- 
sel to be used as a baptismal font,, proves conclusively that 
at, and during the time it was so used; immersion could not 
possibly have been the ojtly mode of baptism practiced by 
the christian church. 

4* T/*£ exclusive claims of. immersers, do not prove theirs-: 
to be the only mode of baptism. Unsupported claims are fre- 
quently made. These are sometimes, exclusive. Indeed, it 
may almost be laid down as a general rule, that the farther, 
persons wander from the word of God as the only rule in all 
religious duties ; the more exclusive and dogmatical they 
become.. But kr Popery and High Church Episcopacy, it 
is clearly exhibited. These do not even pretend to take the 
scriptures as their only rule of faith and practice in all reli- 
gious duties ; and yet, each is so exclusive as to hold very 
strenuously, that no society of christians can constitute a 
branch of the church of Christ, unless J3iocesan Episcopacy 
forms one of its essential ingredients ; though this is. not so 
much as once named in the word of God. Immersers are so 
exclusive that, in the estimation of many of them ; no class 
of christians constitutes a church or a branch of the church 
of Christ, unless its. members have been immersed as a sub- 
stitute for baptism ; though this is not once mentioned as 
baptism in the whole, of God's book. The resemblance 
among these exclusiv-es, is manifest. But all these unsupport* 
ed' claims, do not prove that Diocesan Episcopacy is essen- 
tial to church, organization ; or that immersion is essential 
to baptism. It does not even prove that immersion is that 
holy ordinance. Should it be admitted that a few of these 
different classes, of exclusives are pious and learned men ; 

(a,)Zosimus was macte Bishop of Rome in the y«ar A. I>. 417; as we learn from 
church history. (b)The original is this; OCVa^fXOt l£gOV ^WKTiff^arog Zotf- 
iffcOU.^SW (5w^0UVT0g--T0V XgOLTSga ayiOV. Literally this may be translated - t . 
"-The dedicated present of Zosimus who gives this sacred vessel .to God for the pur_^ 
poseof holy baptism." 



164 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. 11. 

the facts in the case would be still the same. Even the ex- 
clusive claims of these, however dogmatically asserted, can- 
not make Episcopacy scriptural church government ; nor 
immersion, the baptism taught in God's own holy book. 

5. To call immersion a cross does not prove it to he the 
only mode of baptism. When Christ requires a person to 
perform a duty which, for some cause, may, at the time, be 
disagreeable to him ; the performance of it under such cir- 
cumstances, may be called a cross. To make a particular 
action a cross, it must be a duty positively required in God's 
word ; and it must, from some cause or causes, be disagreea- 
ble to the person at the time it is to be performed. But what 
is not positively commanded in the scriptures, cannot be 
made a christian's cross. What God does not command, 
may be a cross which Satan, the world or men, may require 
us to bear; but this last cross is essentially different from 
that which Christ directs his people to " take up" and 
"bear."* To "bear" the cross which he commands us to 
take up, is essential to Christianity. Without doing this, no 
person can be a true child of God. Our Saviour himself 
has determined this point. He says, " whosoever doth not 
bear his cross cannot be my disci pie. "t Whatever cross 
Christ requires us to "take up" and "bear," ought to be 
borne cheerfully in obedience to his command. Satan, the 
world or men may direct us to do what is not required in 
God's word. Obedience to their mandate may not be pleas- 
ant to us. They may call what they require, a cross in 
order to induce us to obey. But we ought to know, that 
such a cross is only a creature's invention ; not a cross 
which Christ requires us to bear. To take up a cross of the 
creature's invention, is not to serve, but to disobey, the Re- 
deemer of sinners. To call that a cross which God in his 
word does not require, cannot make it such. But in the 
scriptures, men are not required to be immersed(a) ; there- 
fore immersion cannot be that cross which every " disciple" 
must " bear."J Besides, to be put entirely under water is, or 
is not, a cross according to the temperature of the weath- 
er, (b) Whether an act is, or is not, a cross of Christ, does 

*Mat. 16: 24, Mark 8: 34, Luke 9: 23. fLuke 14: 27. (a) See P. i, Ch. 1, § 1-8. 
JLuke 14: 27. (b) It is a well known fact that persons in warm weather frequently po 
entirely under water merely for amusement. This act then, at such a season, cannot 
be a cross to them. 



Ch. 4, § 6.] CLAIMS OF IMMERSION. 165 

not, however, depend upon the temperature of the weather, 
or on the change of the seasons. As therefore immersion 
is not required in the word of God ; and as it is, or is not, a 
cross according to the temperature of the weather, so it can- 
not be a cross which Christ commands his disciples to bear. 
To call it a cross, when God does not, may deceive men, 
but cannot deceive Omniscience. It is manifest from these 
remarks, that to call immersion a cross, cannot prove it to 
be the only mode of baptism. 

6. Immersion cannot be a sign of what is signified in bap- 
tism. Christian baptism signifies the work of the Holy Spirit 
on the soul(a). When the operations of the Spirit are men- 
tioned, whatever may be their degree or kind, the person is, 
in no passage of scripture, said to be immersed in the Holy 
Ghost, or to be put under or even into the Spirit. If these 
operations of the Spirit, or even any part of them, were 
represented as being by immersion, then external immersion 
might be a sign of them. But as no part of the Spirit's op^ 
erations, is said to be by immersion, or by putting the per- 
son into or under the Holy Ghost ; so literal immersion can^ 
not represent any portion of them. Literal immersion might 
represent spiritual immersion. But, as the work of the Spirit 
is not, either wholly or in part, said in scripture to be by im- 
mersion ; so immersion under water, cannot be a sign of 
the whole or of any part of the Spirit's operations. The 
Spirit, in his operations, is often said to be «* poured out" 
upon men; and persons are represented as being 4 ' filled 
with the Holy Ghost,' 7 * when his converting, sanctifying or 
supernatural influences are enjoyed in an unusual degree. 
When the Spirit is " poured out" upon persons, or they are 
"filled with" his influences, the Spirit is in or upon them ; 
but they are certainly not put under or immersed all over in 
the Spirit. When the Spirit enters into and fills a man, 
that man then is not put entirely into or under the Spirit. 
That which falls upon a person may be a sign of the out- 
pouring of the Spirit on him. But to put him under water 
cannot possibly be a sign of what falls on him ; because to 
fall upon, be poured out upon, or be filled with, does not, in 
the least degree, resemble immersion. As the influences of 
the Spirit, which are " poured out" — " shed" — M fall upon" 

(a) See B. i ; P. iv, Ch. I, $ 9. *Prov. h 23. Isa, 32: 15, Joel 2: 28, Acts 2: 4. 17. 



166 BIBLE BAPTISM, [fi. II, P, 11. 

•or fill the soul,* are symbolized by baptism ; so immersion 
in which water is not poured out or shed, and does not fall 
upon the person immersed, cannot be a sign of these opera* 
tions of the Holy Ghost. 

It may also be remarked here, that immersion cannot sym» 
bolize the death of Christ. He suffered on the cross ; and 
there is no possible resemblance between the death of a per- 
son while suspended on the cross, several feet above the 
earth, and being put entirely under water in immersion. Nor 
can it be a sign of, or symbolize his burial. He was laid in 
a "tomb >? "hewn out of a rock,"t not in water. Immer- 
sion cannot be a sign or token by which his burial is repre- 
sented ; for there is no resemblance between the two ac- 
tions^). In his resurrection, his human soul and body were 
re-united. This is what is always included in the language 
when the resurrection of a dead body is mentioned. With- 
out this re-union of soul and body, no resurrection can take 
place. With it, there is a resurrection from the dead. This 
is in fact what constitutes a resurrection of the dead. That 
exercise of Divine power by which the human body and soul 
of Christ were re-united on the third day after his death, had 
nothing in it which, in any particular, resembles the going 
or the putting of a living person entirely under water. Nor 
did the resurrection of Christ from the dead, or in other 
words, the re-union of his human soul and body, resemble, 
in the least degree, the raising of a living person from un- 
der the water ; and this act is one essential part of what is 
done in immersion(^). Immersion therefore, in any of its 
parts, or in them all united, cannot be a sign of, or symbol- 
ize the resurrection of Christ, or the re-union, by Omnipo- 
tent power, of his human soul and body. Immersion does 
not in the least, resemble, and therefore cannot symbolize 
his departure out of the tomb. To walk, in any way, out of 
the tomb in which he had been laid, could no more be rep^ 
resented or symbolized by immersion in any of its parts, 
than to walk out of one room into another, or out of a house 
into the street, can be signified or represented by putting a 
person under water and then taking him out from under it 
again. To suppose that our Saviour's departure out of his 

*Tit. 3: G, Acts 2: 4 nnd 10: 44. 45 and II: 15-18. fMat. 27: 60. Mark 15; 46. (a) i\ 
i, Ch.4, $ 2. (b.) See B. i, P, vii, Ch. 1, % 4, par. 5. 



Ch. 4 § 7.] CLAIMS OF IMMERSION. 167 

tomb, which was a small room hewn out of a rock, can be 
symbolized by raising a person up from under water, is man- 
ifestly absurd(a). Coming out of such a tomb, or out of a 
house, cannot, surely, appear to any reflecting person, like 
going into and under the water, and then being immediately 
raised up again from under its surface. But as baptism was 
not instituted to represent, symbolize, or be a sign of these 
or of any of them ; so farther remarks here in relation to 
them, are unnecessary. It is manifest however, that as the 
influences of the Spirit represented by baptism, descended 
upon persons ; so thrusting them entirely under water in 
immersion and immediately taking them from under its sur- 
face again, cannot be a sign of, or symbolize these opera- 
tions of the Holy Ghost.* 

7. The command to baptize is not limited to any place ; 
nor does it require water to be brought in any particular way. 
When Christ directs his ministering servants to "teach all 
nations, baptizing them,"f he does not inform them in what 
particular way, water is to be obtained for that purpose. 
Nor does he require them to administer the ordinance in any 
particular place. He does not say, whether the water is to 
be brought in a bowl in the hand, or in a hogshead on a cart 
to fill a cistern. He gives us no direction as to the mode in 
which the water is to be brought to the place where it is to 
be used. Indeed, this, even in the estimation of immersers, 
can hardly be considered an essential part of baptism. More- 
over, the practice of the apostles clearly shows that the place 
where baptism is administered, or the mode in which the 
water is procured, constitutes no part of that ordinance. Nor 
would the fact that immersers fill a cistern with water, drawn 
in very large vessels, prove that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. It may be remarked also, that as the act of 
bringing the water to be used in baptism, is not one of reli- 
gious worship ; so no person ought to be surprized when he 
finds that nothing is said on that particular point in the scrip- 
tures. Nor would a single remark have been here made 
upon it, if immersers did not sometimes, when driven by argu- 
ment from every other ground, attempt to sustain the claims 
of immersion by saying that no person can show scriptural 
evidence to prove that water was brought in a bowl into a 

(g.) See B, ii, V. i, Cb, 4, $ 3, (note b) par. 3. *See John 1: 32. fMat, 28; 10, 



168 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III. 

house to be used for the purpose of baptizing persons. This 
demand shows that they fancy that the mode of bringing 
water to be used in baptism, is a part of, or essential to the 
ordinance. And if it is, they ought to be prepared to prove 
their position, and to show that water, for this purpose, must 
be drawn on a cart in sufficient quantities to fill a cistern, 
in order that immersion might be practiced. But all such 
statements do not prove that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism. They only prove that immersers feel how abso- 
lutely impossible it is to sustain, with any thing like tolera- 
ble evidence, the exclusive claims of their system. To sup- 
pose that, because it is not stated in the word of God, that 
water was brought in a bowl to be used in baptism, proves 
immersion to be the only mode, is that kind of trifling which 
ought to make even an immerser blush. But certainly no 
person of common reflection could possibly believe that this 
would sustain the position that immersion is the only, or even 
a mode of baptism. 

PART THIRD. 

WHY PERSONS ARE IMMERSED. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE IMMERSED TURN ASIDE FROM THE WORD OF GOD. 

1. Facts prove this 'position. That immersers, on this 
subject, turn aside from the word of God, appears, (1.) From 
the fact that the scriptures, in no one passage(fl), teach, that 
immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (2.) From the fact 
that the word immerse or immersion for baptize or for bap- 
tism, is not once found in the whole book of God(6), either 
in the original or in any proper translation ; and (3.) From 
the fact that no person is, in Divine revelation, said to be 
immersed, or is required to immerse others for baptism or 
for any other purpose. That thesz arc facts, any person 
can learn by reading the scriptures. It is manifest then 
that those who adopt immersion as the only, or even as a 
mode of baptism, must turn aside from the word of God. 

2. The language of immersers proves that, on this subject, 
they turn aside from the word of God. When asked, why 

(a) See P. i, Ch, 5, $ 1-6. (b) See P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-8, 



Ch. 1, § 3.] WHY MEN ARE IMMERSED. 169 

they adopt the notion that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism ; they generally, if not universally, give one or 
more of the following statements as an answer. They of- 
ten say ; (1.) That they know some good man who believes 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (2.) That they 
felt very solemn on a certain occasion when they saw some 
person immersed ; (3.) That their conscience teaches them 
that immersion is the right mode of baptism ; (4.) That ma- 
ny persons in the neighborhood have been or are about to 
be immersed ; (5.) That they were always taught, by some 
good men, that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (6.) 
That their parents, who were christians, believed in this 
mode of baptism ; (7.) That this seems to them to be the 
only mode of baptism; (8.) That the other mode has be- 
come antiquated, while this modern mode shows the march 
of mind. These, and similar reasons, are given as the evi- 
dence by which they are led to be immersed, or to believe 
in that substitute for baptism. But as their conscience is 
not the rule of duty ; and as all these notions merely turn 
aside the mind from the scriptures, which are the only rule 
of duty for christians, in all religious matters ; so they prove 
that immersers, in adopting immersion as the only mode of 
baptism, turn aside from the word of God. These fancies 
ought to be all rejected. They really compose no part of 
the christian's duty. " To the law and to the testimony, "* 
all ought to come for religious instruction on this and on 
every other subject. 

3. The immersed do not examine the foundation on which 
immersion builds its exclusive claims This is (1.) The 
groundless assumption that the word (BatfTi^w) for baptize, 
always means immerse(a). That there is no ground for 
such an assumption, is manifest to any person who has even 
a tolerable acquaintance with the meaning of this word eith- 
er in Greek or English, as it is used either in the scriptures 
or in other books. (2.) Immersers do not understand, or 
they designedly misrepresent the meaning of the preposi- 
tions (sic;) into, (sx) out of, (cwro) from, and (sv) with(£). 
They seem to imagine that the use of these words must cer- 
tainly prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 

*Isa. 8: 20. (a) P. i, Ch. 1, § 7, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 1. 5, P. ii, Ch. 2, § 1-4. (b) P. I Ch, 
3, § 2-8. 



170 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III. 

But such expressions do not even intimate that immersion is 
one mode of baptism. It is certain therefore that they can- 
not teach that it is the only mode. Immersers seem to fan- 
cy that there is a resemblance between immersion and being 
buried with Christ by " baptism into death" on the cross. 
But between these, there is not the least resemblance(a). 
It appears therefore that immersion, even as a mode of bap- 
tism, is obliged to depend for support on a mere assumption, 
on a mistake or misrepresentation, and on a fancy. These 
often lead persons blindfolded into the notion that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism. By neglecting to exam- 
ine the real evidence upon which immersion builds its exclu- 
sive claims, many persons are deceived into the adoption of 
the system. 

4. Few, if any persons, can turn to any one passage of 
scripture and say ; this taught me that immersion is baptism. 
No expression in scripture, either in the literal or figura- 
tive sense of the language, teaches immersion to be even a 
mode of baptism. To say that the word (Bacr<n£w) for bap- 
tize, in the scriptures denotes immerse, is mere assertion or 
fancy. No such signification is, in the whole of Divine rev- 
elation, given to this word. The connection in no one pas- 
sage, shows this to be its definite signification. As such a 
meaning for the word (Ba^rt^w) is only found in the fancies 
of persons, so but few who examine the scriptures, can be 
led to imagine that the word baptize, in that holy book, real- 
ly means immerse. But few can therefore turn to any por- 
tion of the Divine word, and show that as the evidence which 
teaches them to believe in immersion as a mode of baptism 
which they suppose is therein taught. 

5. No one ever found immersion as the only mode of bap- 
tism, taught in the scriptures of truth. The reason is simply 
this; not the least evidence of any kind in favor of immer- 
sion being the only mode of baptism, is found in scripture. 
To this, there is not the most distant allusion made in the 
whole word of God. There is not the least intimation given 
in it that immersion is essential to baptism. This notion has 
nothing in God's word to sustain it even in appearance. 
This holy book says nothing that the most unrestrained or 
misguided fancy could torture into the notion that immersion 

fa; P. i, Ch.4, $2. 



Cll. 2, § lj 2.] THE POINT TO BE PROVED. 171 

is the only mode of baptism. The language of scripture 
contains no literal, no figurative, no fanciful meaning to 
sustain immersers in their exclusive claims. No one could 
therefore ever find, in the scriptures, any kind or degree of 
evidence to prove, even to his own imagination, that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism(a). 

CHAPTER II. 

THE IMMERSED MISTAKE THE POINT TO BE PROVED. 

1. What thf point to be proved is, ought to be kept in mind. 
This is not whether immersion is, or is not, a mode of bap- 
tism ; but the point is, whether it is, or is not, the only 
mode(Z>). That immersion is the only mode of baptism, is 
what immersers assert. This is a very different position 
from the assertion that immersion is baptism, or one mode of 
baptism. This point ought to be kept before the mind in 
order that it may be fairly investigated. 

2. Persons frequently mistake this point. They adopt im- 
mersion simply as a mode of baptism ; not as the only mode. 
From the supposition that they are to be immersed, merely 
as a preferable mode of baptism, they go into and allow them- 
selves to be put under the water. They afterwards, per- 
haps, discover that, by taking this step, they have really, in 
their practice at least, adopted the notion that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism. Having been blindly led to take 
this step ; a desire to justify their own practice, or a wish 
to appear consistent, or to justify the course of their party, 
will usually soon induce them to insist that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism. Having taken the first false step, 
they are the more easily persuaded to take the second. Thus 
they become entangled in the mazes of error. They are 
first immersed without finding either precept or example in 
the word of God for going under the water ; and then they 
are easily led, without a shadow of proof, to assert that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism. Thus they are fre- 
quently induced to be immersed merely as a mode of bap- 
tism ; and then they are led to adopt, as a second part of the 
same lesson, the notion that immersion is the only mode of 

(a) See P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-8, P. i, Ch. 2, § 1-4, P. i, Ch. 3, $ 1-10, P. i, Ch. 4, $ 1-5- 
■(b) SeeB. i, P. vii, Ch. 2, § 1-4. 



172 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III. 

baptism. This is mere deception. But multitudes are, by 
this kind of Jesuitism, induced to unite with immersers and 
adopt their exclusive system. 

CHAPTER III. 

IMMERSERS OFTEN MISTAKE ASSERTIONS FOR PROOF. 

1. Immersers often assert that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. This assertion is frequently made by them with 
the most unblushing assurance, though there is not, in the 
word of God or in Greek write rs(a), the least shadow of ev- 
idence to sustain it. These positive assertions, many mis- 
take for proof; and more suppose that men professing to be 
religious teachers, would not make such unqualified state- 
ments without the least evidence to support them. Many, 
by these their positive assertions, totally unsupported by any 
evidence whatever, are induced to adopt immersion as the 
only mode of baptism. 

2. The assertion that, sometimes ministers of other denom- 
inations, unite with immersers, is often mistaken for evidence 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But this simply 
proves that these men, notwithstanding their professions, 
have not carefully examined this subject. If, however, they, 
at first, either through ignorance or from design, had deceiv- 
ed others in this matter; it might be difficult to determine 
whether, after their professed change of opinion, they were 
entirely worthy of all confidence, even so far as their own 
assertions are concerned. Besides, at least as many forsake 
the ranks of immersers to join others, as forsake others to 
join immersers. It is manifest therefore that a few persons 
who may unite themselves with immersers, after they have 
been members of other denominations of professing chris- 
tians, do not and cannot, by their assertions, prove that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism. The assertions of 
such persons are really no better evidence than those of oth- 
er immersers. Perhaps they are not quite so good proof as 
the declarations of those who have not like them, either from 
ignorance or design, turned aside from truth and adopted the 
unscriptural notion that immersion is the only mode of bap-i 
tism. 

(a) P. i, Ch. 5, $ 4, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1-8, P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 1. 2. 4. 



Ch. 3, § 3, 4.] ASSERTION NOT PROOF. 173 

3. They often assert that Christ and the Evnuch ivere 
immersed. That this is mere assertion without proof, is ev- 
ident to any one who will only read what the Spirit of God 
teaches in relation to their baptism(a). It is not said that 
either of them was put under the water, or was taken up 
from under, or came up from under, the water.* Neither 
of the two actions which are essential to immersion, is men- 
tioned as being performed either by or for Christ or the Eu- 
nuch^). To say that they were immersed is therefore mere 
assertion without proof. 

4. lmmersers seldom attempt to 'prove their position. They 
assert that immersion is a mode, the only mode of baptism. 
This they seldom or never attempt to prove. They find it 
much more convenient to make such an assertion than to 
sustain it by even the appearance of evidence from the word 
of God. But before they ask any person to believe their ex- 
clusive assertion to be true ; they ought to prove its truth 
by the express language of Divine revelation. But they 
seldom attempt to do this. They very seldom undertake to 
show from God's word that immersion is a mode, much less 
that it is the only mode of baptism. Instead of attempting 
to prove their position, like men who honestly supposed 
they had good evidence for that purpose ; instead of bring- 
ing forward positive proof to sustain the exclusive claims of 
their system, as they are bound to do before they can rea- 
sonably ask men of sense to adopt the notion that immersion 
and that only is baptism ; they, as if they knew and felt the 
weakness of their own cause, turn round and begin to ques- 
tion others. They thus put these last on defending them- 
selves. This is done in order to prevent them from requi- 
ring evidence, plain and pointed, in favor of the exclusive 
claims of immersion. In this way the eyes of not a few are 
blinded. lmmersers seldom or never attempt to bring for- 
ward any pointed proof to show that immersion is the only 
mode or even one mode of baptism. To assert this and sup- 
pose it needs no proof, is much more convenient for them. 
This plan will also deceive many, much more effectually 
than awkward attempts to prove that in favor of which there 
is no evidence. They can accomplish this, too, with much 

(a) P. i, Ch. % § 1-4, P. i, Ch. 3, <S 2. 5. 7. *See Mat. 3: 16, Acts 8: 3°. 39 in Greek 
and English, (b) B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1,' § 4, par. 4. 5. 



174 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. III. 

more ease than they could attempt the impossible task of na- 
ming the book, chapter and verse in Divine revelation, 
which teaches that immersion is a mode or the only mode of 
baptism. This total want of evidence in favor of immer- 
sion in the word of God, bore so hard upon their exclusive 
system that, to escape from the dilemma into which they 
were brought by it, they even altered the scriptures of truth 
so as to make an immersion bible for themselves(a). By 
this and similar management, they show that they feel the 
entire insufficiency of the evidence on which they attempt 
to erect their exclusive system. But notwithstanding this, 
not a few are deceived by this sophistry. By it, numbers 
are induced to go under, instead of to or into the water, as 
was the case in one or two, out of the many instances of bap- 
tism mentioned in scripture. They submit to be applied to 
the water, instead of having the baptismal water applied to 
them. 

Moreover, when scriptural evidence to prove that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism, is demanded, it is often as- 
serted that there is as much evidence for immersion as there 
is for sprinkling. This assertion admits that sprinkling, as 
a mode of baptism, is supported by as good evidence as im- 
mersion is. It therefore destroys the exclusive claims of im- 
mersers ; for if sprinkling is a mode of baptism ; if it is sup- 
ported by as good evidence as immersion is, then immersion 
cannot be the only mode of baptism ; and that it is such, is 
the position which the exclusives on. this subject always take. 
If it was a fact therefore that there is as much evidence in 
favor of immersion, as there is for sprinkling, it would not 
prove that immersion is the only mode of baptism. If the 
scriptures contained no evidence for sprinkling, if they even 
declared that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism, no proof 
would even then be thus furnished to show that immersion 
is baptism or the only mode of administering that ordinance. 
If sprinkling water upon a person in the name of the Trini- 
ty, is not baptism, it by no means follows as a necessary con- 
sequence or even as a fair inference, that immersion is the 
only mode. By adopting such sophistry, immersers show 
that they feel how totally destitute their- system is of substan~ 
tial evidence for its support. 

(a) See P. ii, Ch. 3, $ 9, (note a,) par. 7. 



Ch. 1, § 1, 2.] ORIGIN OP IMMERSION. 175 

5. They often assume an inference, and mistake this for 
proof They say, the Eunuch was immersed, because he 
went into the water. This is assuming for truth a mere in- 
ference ; and an inference too not found in the premises. 
It by no means follows that, if the Eunuch went into the wa- 
ter, he was therefore immersed. Many persons go into, 
without going under water. Perhaps a thousand persons go 
into water without going or being put under it,, for one that 
goes into it for the purpose of being immersed But this 
their assumed inference, though in reality it is mere asser- 
tion, is often mistaken for proof that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. And in this way, some are led under the 
water as a substitute for christian baptism. 

PART FOURTH. 

THE ORIGIN AND EVILS OF IMMERSION. 

CHAPTER I. 

WHEN IMMERSION AS THE ONLY MODE OP BAPTISM DID NOT 
ORIGINATE. 

1. Immersion did not originate with the Apostles. Im- 
mersion as baptism, or rather as a substitute for baptism, did 
not originate with the apostles ; because they did not im- 
merse for that or for any other purpose(a). Immersion could 
not therefore have originated with them. Neither of the 
Greek words (s ( a/3a-n'-rw or s i a/3a<7r'<n^w) which occasionally 
denote immerse, is used to express any ordinance adminis- 
tered by the apostles. There is not therefore the leasl sha- 
dow of evidence to prove that immersion had its origin with 
the apostles of our Saviour. 

2. Immersion did not originate with John the Baptist. 
This position is proved from the fact that he did not immerse. 
(&). It is repeatedly stated that he baptized; but it is not 
asserted, in a single passage in the whole scriptures, that he 
immersed. Neither of the two words (e^fiarfTu or Sfjt,/3atf- 
tj^oj) which in Greek sometimes signify immerse, is used to 
express what John did when he baptized the Jews. Besides, 
John baptized in a different mode(c). He baptized '•'■with 
water,"* not under that element. He who baptizes " with 

(a) P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-8. (b) P. i, Ch. 7, § 6. (c) See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, $ 1. 4. *Mat. 
3: 11, Mark 1: 8. &c. 



176 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV. 

water," does not immerse. To baptize " with water," is to 
apply the fluid to a person. To immerse is to apply the 
person to, and then thrust him entirely under the water(a). 
John baptized with, not under, water. It cannot therefore be 
true that he immersed. Nor can it hence be possible that 
immersion originated with him. 

3. Immersion did not originate among the Jews as one of 
their ceremonial washings. These are not, in any passage 
of scripture, called immersion or immersions(^). These are 
collectively called baptisms.* But in no instance are they 
all, or is any one of them said to be performed by immer- 
sion. Whenever the mode of performing these their cere- 
monial washings or baptisms, is mentioned, it is always said 
to have been by sprinkling, never by immersion(Z>). To 
say therefore that the Jews performed their Divinely ap- 
pointed ceremonial washings or baptisms, by immersion, is 
manifestly mere assertion. To make such a declaration 
would be to speak without evidence. Such a statement would 
be contrary to undeniable facts. It cannot therefore be that 
immersion originated with the Jews at or before the death of 
Christ. 

4. This ceremony did not originate with the Lord Jesus 
Christ. The scriptures do not teach that he immersed or 
directed others to immerse persons for baptism or for any 
other purpose (c). He baptized and directed his minister- 
ing servants to baptize others, t But it is not stated in the 
original scriptures, nor in any accurate translation, that he 
himself immersed or that he directed others to do so. It is 
worse than trifling then to suppose that immersion origina- 
ted with the blessed Redeemer. 

5. Immersion did not originate at or before the time of the 
Apostles. No Greek word which, even frequently, denotes 
immerse, is used in the scriptures for baptism. Of the two 
words (six8a.K<ru and e^fiarfri^u) which frequently, though 
not in the word of God, express immerse, or the putting of 
what is mentioned entirely under water, neither is, at any 
time, in the original, used for baptism. If the Holy Spirit 
had intended to teach mankind that immersion is the only 

(a) P. i, Ch. 3, § 6, B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, § 4. (b) See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 1. § 2. 3. *S^e 
Mark 7: 4, Lnke 11: 38, Heb. 9: 10. 13. 19. 21 in Greek, (c) P. i, Ch. 1, $ 1-6. tSea 
Mat. 28; 19, John 3: 22. 26. 



Ch. 1, § 6.] ORIGIN OP IMMERSION. 177 

mode, or even a mode of baptism, certainly one of the words 
denoting immerse, or both, would have been used as often 
as once at least, for baptize. But this is not the case. No 
word which in the original, usually signifies immerse, is, in 
any one passage, used for baptism or baptize. The word 
(Bowrrj^w) for baptize, is not, itself, so connected with other 
words in a single passage, in the original scriptures, as to re- 
quire it to signify immerse(a) ; nor is it intimated that im- 
merse is its only signification, or even one of its meanings. 
(&). There is therefore no evidence that immersion origi- 
nated in the days of the apostles or before. It may be left 
to immersers to believe, or rather profess to believe, that for 
which the word of God furnishes not the least evidence. 
Men who take the scriptures for their only rule of duty in 
every part of their religion, must beg to be excused from 
following the mere conjecture of their fellow creatures. 
They do not choose to adopt that as the only mode of bap- 
tism, which is not so much as once mentioned in the whole 
word of God, even as one mode by which that ordinance may 
be administered. 

6. Immersion did not originate with the early Greek Fa- 
thers. These frequently mention baptism. But when they 
do so, they use the word (Barfn^u) for baptize ; but in no 
instance do they use, to denote this ordinance, either of the 
words (sjxjScwrri^eo or sjx^atfrw) which often signify im- 
merse(c). Since they did not use a word for baptize which 
usually signifies immerse, it cannot with the least propriety, 
be supposed that with them originated the opinion that im- 
mersion is a mode or the only mode of baptism. Modern 
immersers frequently speak in the most unequivocal lan- 
guage on this subject. They do not hesitate to use the word 
immerse. The early Greek Fathers do not, for baptize, use 
a word which generally denotes immerse. If these Fathers 
and modern immersers mean the same thing ; their mode of 
expressing it is exceedingly different ! ! ! It cannot, there- 
fore, be even conjectured with any degree of probability, 
that immersion, as the only, or even as a mode of baptism, 
originated with the early Greek Fathers. As immersion for 
baptism is not mentioned in the word of God, nor in the wri- 

(a) P. i, Ch. 1, § 8. (b) P. i, Ch. 1, § 7. (c) V. ii, Ch. 2, $ 2. 

12 



173 BIBLE BAPTISxM. [b. II, P. IV. 

tings of any of the early Greek Fathers ; it must be sought 
for elsewhere. It is certain to those who examine the sub- 
ject carefully, that immersion, as the only, or even as a mode 
of baptism, was unknown in the days when " holy men of 
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ;" be- 
cause the word immerse, or a Greek word denoting it, is not 
used in the scriptures for baptism or for baptize. For the 
same reason, it is certain that immersion for baptism was 
unknown in the early ages of the church. 

CHAPTER II. 

WHEN AND WHERE IMMERSION, AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAP- 
TISM, ORIGINATED. 

1. Immersion as a mode of bajytism originated in the dark- 
ages. From about the year A. D. 700, till about the year 
A. D. 1500, moral and spiritual darkness spread a fearful 
gloom over the world. The light of revelation was almost 
extinguished. Immorality threw its withering curse over al- 
most every portion of Christendom. Iniquity, like a desola- 
ting tide of liquid fire, spread its blighting influence over the 
nations. " Darkness" covered "the earth," and "gross 
darkness the people." Ignorance was almost universally 
prevalent. True science had but few advocates, and true 
religion, scarcely any. Those centuries during which igno- 
rance and unbridled wickedness prevailed and exercised a 
domineering influence over the minds of men, are emphati- 
cally called m The Dark Ages." During these ages of 
spiritual desolation, immersion, as a mode of baptism, had 
its origin. Between the years A. D. 1110 and 1150, a few 
persons among the Albigenses and Waldenses, adopted, as is 
supposed by some, the opinion that immersion is a mode of 
baptism. These were few in number and continued but a 
short time. They adopted the opinion that infants cannot 
be saved. They were called Petrobrussians, after their lead- 
er Peter De Bruys. It is supposed, though it is not certain, 
that this little, short-lived, fanatical sect, sometimes practiced 
immersion as a substitute for baptism(a). But there is no 
evidence that any even of these fancied it to be the only mode 

(a) Among their various fancies they adopted several important truths. See Buck, 
Marsh, p. 231, Sketches of Sectarianism, No. 3. 



Ch. 2, § 2, 3.] ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 179 

of baptism. Some of them rejected baptism entirely, as the 
Quakers and others do at present(a). This is the earliest 
definite intimation given in Ecclesiastical history of any 
thing like immersion being practiced for baptism. The 
word baptize is often, before this date, used to express this 
holy ordinance ; but before this, no word is expressly used 
for it, which universally or even generally denotes immerse. 

2. In the Greek Church, immension for baptism, originated 
in the dark ages. The Greek or Eastern church separated 
from the Latin or Western, about the year 1050. It has a 
greater extent of territory than the Latin church and all the 
branches which have originated in departing from its com- 
munion. At the time the Greek separated from the Latin 
church, immersion had no name as an ordinance among pro- 
fessing christians. No word which universally or even gen- 
erally signified immersion, had then been used for baptism. 
But it is not certainly known how soon after this separation, 
immersion was introduced into the Greek church for bap- 
tism. It is probable however that, at first, the washing 
which, at that time and long before, often preceded baptism, 
was at length occasionally substituted for that ordinance. 
In this way, immersion for baptism, might have been gradu- 
ally introduced(S). But this church, with all its supersti- 
tious foibles, does not maintain that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism(c). And, for more than a thousand years 
after the birth of Christ, its members had not used (s/x/3a<7r<rw 
or sjx/3a'7rTj^w or) any word for baptism which generally sig- 
nified immerse. But whether this immersion, frequently 
practiced by the Greek church, or that of the Petrobrus- 
sians, is the most ancient, is not easily determined ; nor is 
this a matter of any importance in reference to the argu- 
ment. It is certain that with the one, if it existed at all, it 
did not originate before the year 1110 ; nor with the other, 
before the year 1050. They both had their origin in the 
dark ages ; and neither of them did or does hold that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism, 

3. Immersion, as the only mode of baptism, was first taught 
during the progress of the Reformation from Popery. This 

(a) See Sket. of Sec. No. 3. (b) See Buck; Reli. Cer. and Cus. Mosheim, Wells, 
Wharey, Gregory and Hawies' Ch. Hist. King's Rites and Cer. of Gr. Ch. Russ. Cat. 
Secret Memoirs of the Court of Petersburgh ; Tooke's Hist of Rus; Ricaut on theGr. 
Ch.; Brit. Ency. (c) P. ii, Ch. 3, § 1, P. Ti, Ch. 4, § 1. 



180 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV. 

reformation commenced about the year 1517. About the 
year 1521, the Anabaptists(a) began to preach and organize 
themselves in Saxony and in some other parts of the Ger- 
man Confederation. They professed to be inspired, reject- 
ed civil magistracy, the baptism of infants, and all distinc- 
tions among men. They held to polygamy, the immediate 
and personal appearance of Christ on earth, the immersion 
of adults, and a number of other peculiarities. In many 
respects they were grossly immoral. One of their leaders 
married fourteen wives, most if not all of them living at the 
same time. During the year 1525, their number being not 
less than seventy-five thousand, they took up arms and de- 
clared war against all law. They were, by the civi] pow- 
er, overcome and dispersed, June 24th, 1535. They re- 
mained in this disorganized state, till 1536. At this date, 
Menno Simon, a notoriously profligate priest, resigned his 
office in the Romish church, laid aside some of his immoral- 
ities, and joined the Anabaptists. Being a man of some 
learning and observation, he reduced their system to a de- 
gree of order. He omitted several of its most extravagant 
and fanciful parts. He also added some things less inconsis- 
tent with morality than their previous notions were. Under 
him, they adopted the notion that immersion is, not only 
baptism, but the only mode of baptism. This they did about 
the year 1538. About the same time a number of English 
Anabaptists renounced their baptism, sent one of their party 
to Amsterdam to be immersed by a Dutch Anabaptist, was 
immersed by him, and adopted the opinion that immersion 
and that only is baptism. This was the origin of immersion 
as the only mode of baptism. This notion originated in 
blood and rapine, and unbridled licentiousness. All this, its 
originators practiced to a fearful extent. They originated 
and organized their own system ; were self-appointed ; their 
every society is and has been self-constituted. To those 
who commenced the system, common morality was a stran- 
ger. In many places, the followers of these ancient im- 
mersers imitate the example of their former leaders, as near- 
ly as circumstances will permit(i). Thus immersion, as 

(a) The word Anabaptist denotes one who baptizes a second time, or a baptizer 
anew. Wells', Wharey's, &.C., Hist, (b) See Ecclesiastical History, as Marsh, Mo- 
sheim, &c. : Robertson's Hist, of Charles V.; Brit. Ency.; Reli. Cer. and Cus. 



Ch. 2, §4.] ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 181 

the only mode of baptism, originated early in the sixteenth 
century, among a set of extravagantly wicked fanatics. Their 
horrid profligacy would make the most abandoned wretch of 
modern days, ashamed of their company. Their fanaticism 
would outdo any thing of the kind that has disgraced human 
nature, since they, under the name of religion, gave a loose 
rein to all the baser passions of the carnal heart. Let those 
who adopt such a system, look at its origin and blush. Let 
them feel that honest men instead of adopting such a system, 
ought to hold it in abhorrence. 

4. Immersion originated in America in the seventeenth 
century. Early in this century, a minister of a congrega- 
tional church in Boston(a), refused to commune with those 
who had communed with the Episcopal church. He taught 
that magistrates ought not to punish men for breaking the 
Sabbath or for disturbing public worship, and that all reli- 
gions should be tolerated(£). These opinions produced great 
commotions in the commonwealth. They were contrary to 
the civil law. He was therefore, for teaching them, ban- 
ished, about the year 1635. He settled in Providence, Rhode 
Island, renounced his baptism, and in March, 1638, was im- 
mersed by Mr. Ezekiel Hollyman. This Mr. Hollyman 
was a layman. He was not, and did not profess to be, a 
minister of any denomination. This layman immersed the 
Rev. Roger Williams, and then the Rev. Roger Williams 
turned round and immersed the same Mr. Hollyman and 
nine other persons. A minister, after preaching several 
years, professes to have just discovered, one of the first 
" principles of the doctrine of Christ."* He then admits 
that he had been deceiving all who had before been instruct- 
ed by him on the subject of baptism. He receives immer- 
sion from a person who had no authority to administer bap- 
tism(c), and then fancies that this blasphemous farce author- 
izes him to immerse others as a substitute for baptism. Im- 
mersion in America originated therefore, in the seventeenth 
century, with an unimmersed layman, who, without the 
least shadow of authority from God's word, performed the 
solemn farce of immersing Roger Williams, after he, the 

(a) Roger Williams, (b) This last is generally, and with propriety, considered to 
be a correct sentiment, *See Heb. 6: 1. 2. (c) B. i, P. vi, Ch. 2, § 1. 



182 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IT, P. IV. 

said Roger, had been, in profession at least, for years a min- 
ister of the gospel(a). 

It appears therefore from this chapter, (1.) That immer- 
sion as one mode of baptism, or rather as a substitute for this 
ordinance, may have been practiced in France by the Petro- 
brussians between the years 1110 and 1150. A part of 
these at least, after the death of Peter De Bruys their lead- 
er, were called Henricians, after Henry one of his disci- 
ples. (2.) Some time after the year 1050, the Greek or 
Eastern church adopted immersion as one mode, and finally 
as their usual, though not as the only mode of baptizing their 
infants. (3.) In Germany and England, those most wicked, 
most horridly profligate fanatics, the Anabaptists, about the 
year 1538, adopted immersion as the only mode of baptism. 
This is the first instance on record of any class, society or 
congregation of persons, good or bad, who adopted immer- 
sion as the only mode of baptism. (4.) In America, immer- 
sion had its origin in the year 1638, with an unimmersed 
layman, who had no authority whatever to administer bap- 
tism in any mode. It is manifest therefore that, during the 
darkest part of the dark ages, immersion as one mode of 
baptism, originated in ignorance ; and that, as the only 
mode, it had its origin in the most unblushing profligacy and 
licentious wickedness which could disgrace the name of man. 
That men professing to be intelligent christians, should adopt, 
as a religious ordinance, that which had such an origin, is 
truly astonishing. But that any such persons should serious- 
ly insist upon this progeny of licentiousness being the only 
mode of baptism, can only be accounted for on the supposi- 
tion that they have never carefully examined the subject 



CHAPTER III. 

EVILS OF IMMERSION. 

1. Several evils are practiced in persuading persons to be 
immersed. These are various. Only a few of them need 
be mentioned here. Those whom immersers are attempting 
to lead into their snare, are (1.) Deceived by false statements. 

(a) See Sket. of Sec. No. 3.; Memoir of Roger Williams by J. D. Knowles, p. 46. lOo. 
106. as quoted by E. House; Marsh, Mosheim, and Church History generally. 



Ch. 3. § 2.] EVILS OF IMMERSION. 163 

They are told that Christ was immersed(a); that the Eunuch 
was immersed(^); that Christ was baptized to set us an ex- 
ample^); that John's was the ordinance of christian bap- 
tism^) that the word baptize always signifies immerse(e); 
that immersion is the only scriptural baptism^; that the 
Lexicons and Pedobaptist writers teach that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism(^J; that immersion is a christian 
cross(A); and they make a variety of other statements as- 
destitute of truth as those here named are. (2.) By these 
false statements, persons are often led to turn aside from the 
word of God. They are thus induced to be immersed as a 
substitute for baptism ; when immersion as baptism, is not 
so much as once mentioned in the whole scriptures(i). Hav- 
ing thus turned aside from Divine authority in relation to 
baptism, they (3.) Are prepared to take the assertions of men 
for their rule instead of the plain declarations of God's 
word^. In this way they adopt the exclusive system of 
immersers, These are evils of no small magnitude. 

2. A number of evils are committed in the very act of re- 
ceiving immersion. (1.) The command of God is violated 
in which he requires men, in every religious practice to act 
according " to the law and to the testimony"*(&). As there 
is no precept or example in God's word for immersion ; in 
the very act of going under the water as a part of their re- 
ligion, they disobey this command. They also in this act 
violate all such commands as speak in this or similar lan- 
guage; " Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of 
man. 7 'f (2.) As in this act they trust in the directions gi- 
ven by man instead of those which God reveals; they may, 
by adopting it for baptism, draw down upon themselves that 
curse which is revealed in these words; " Cursed be the man 
that trusteth in man."! (3.) In this act, they use a mere 
human invention which originated in gross ignorance and 
in most wicked fanaticism(Z) as if it was a Divine ordinance, 
the observance of which God had positively required, and 
which he had as positively forbidden to be observed in any 
other mode. (4.) Not a small proportion of immersers make 

fa; See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, § 1. (b)See B. iii, P. 1, Ch. 2, § 2. (c)B. i, P. iii, Ch. 
2, §9. (d)B. i, P. iii, Ch. 1, ft 19. (c)P. i, Ch. 1, ft 7; P. ii, Ch. 1, ft 1. (f)P. i, Ch. 
5, ft 1-6. (g)V. ii, Ch. 1, ft 1 ;' P. ii, Ch. 2, §3. (h)P. ii, Ch. 4, ft 5. (i)Y. i, Ch. 1, 
§ 1-8. (j)P. i, Ch. 8, ft 1." *Isa. 8: 20. (k)V. ii, Ch 3, ft 5. \V\. 146: 3. Uer. 17; 
5. (l)Ch.2, $3. 



184 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV. 

Of at least seem to make, a saviour of immersion. As soon 
as they are immersed, they appear to act as if they had no 
other service of a religious nature to perform. They ne- 
glect secret and family prayer, turn aside from the word 
of God in their habitual practice, violate the Sabbath, and 
engage, without any apparent reluctance, in the commission 
of almost any popular sin. They sometimes affirm that im- 
mersion is essential to salvation ; and most of them talk as 
if they supposed that no person could be a christian or even 
a moral man who refuses to be immersed(a). Nol; a small 
class among them, as soon as they are immersed, openly re- 
fuse to practice any religious duty (5). It appears therefore 
that they or many of them nearly or quite make a saviour 
of immersion. 

3. Immersion is an evil to the immersed. By being im- 
mersed as a substitute for baptism, they are (1.) Prepared to 
reject or pervert every passage of scripture which speaks of 
the mode of baptism. As not one passage in the word of 
God, mentions immersion as the only mode, or even as a 
mode, of baptism(c); so they, to sustain their system, must 
reject or pervert every passage which mentions that subject. 
(2.) This cultivates prejudice against those who take the 
word of God for their only rule of duty. (3.) To sustain 
their system, they are under the necessity of making false 
statements as to the language of the scriptures, of Lexicons 
and of those who reject their notions in relation to baptism(d). 
These and many other evils, are brought upon the immers- 
ed, from adopting the notion that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. 

4. Others suffer in consequence of men adopting the opin- 
ion that immersion is the only mode of baptism. (1.) Some 
have lost their lives in attempting to be immersed(e). In 
such cases, the crime of man-slaughter, if nothing worse, is 
committed. (2.) The health of many is destroyed or very 
materially injured, by being immersed. Every observing 
person who lives among immersers, can, no doubt, refer to 

(a)See Bliss on Bap. (b)Kemmont. See also Calmet, and Brace vol. iv, p. 275. 
(e)T. i, Ch. 1, § 8. (d)§ 1. They frequently assert that the Bible teaches that im- 
merson is the only mode of baptism ; that the Lexicons teach the same notion ; that 
all who believe in baptism admit their claims to be well founded. &c; while not one of 
these or similar statements is true. ^One instance of this, kind occurred at Crewe in 
England Nov. 23, 1843; see Ch. In. No. 700. 



Ch. 3, § 4.] EVILS OF IMMERSION. 185 

instances of this evil. (3.) This opinion promotes infidelity 
by leading its advocates to reject the Old Testament, as if it 
was no part of God's word ; and by frequently leading them 
to mistake an excitement of the imagination for true reli- 
gion. (4.) Some who adopt this notion refuse the seal of 
God's covenant to a part of those to whom the command re- 
quires it to be applied.* (5.) Those who hold that immer- 
sion is the only mode of baptism, often put christians on a 
par with atheists. They debar the children of God from the 
table of their Saviour; because they do not adopt as the only 
mode of baptism, what is not mentioned as baptism in the 
whole of Divine revelation. They thus, as far as their princi- 
ples can do so, unchurch all who will not substitute human 
for Divine authority in relation to the ordinance of bap- 
tism. (6.) It has a tendency to continue its advocates in ig- 
norance, by leading them to suppose that God says one thing 
when he means another, — that when he says baptize, he 
means immerse. This same system originating, as it did, 
in ignorance and wickedness(a), introduces men who can 
scarcely read their mother tongue with tolerable accuracy, 
into that sacred office which requires all who hold it to be 
able to teach all things that Christ has commanded. f To 
place ignorance in the office of the gospel ministry, has al- 
ways been, and yet is, practiced by every class of immers- 
ers (b). While men who have so little regard for the 
gospel of Christ and for the souls of our race, that they will 
not spend the time and labor which are necessary to qualify 
them in some degree for teaching what all whom the Re- 
deemer of sinners sends out as his ambassadors must teach, 
are introduced into the sacred office; so long will ignorant 
and wicked men be found in the ministry; and so long as 
those who submit to the exclusive claims of immersion, ad- 
mit such men to be public teachers among them; so long 
will their system promote ignorance and wickedness. 

Thus a few of the evils of immersion, have been mention- 
ed. These vary in their degree of guilt, from falsehood to 
man-slaughter. They are perpetrated by the immerser 
and by those who are immersed. They are either direct- 
ly or indirectly countenanced by all those who adopt 

*See Gen. 17: 12, Rom. 4: 11. (a)Ch. 2, § 3. fSee Mat. 23: 19. 20. (^Though this 
is a general trnth; still there are a few men of science among their preachers. 



136 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. II, P. IV. 

immersion as the only mode of baptism. Christians and mo- 
ral men ought to be excused from adopting such a system. 
A GENERAL VIEW OF 

IMMERSION AS THE ONLY MODE OF BAPTISM; PRESENTED IN 
A DIALOGUE. 

Baptizer. Mr. immerser do you hold that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism? 

Immerser. Yes, that is my belief. 

B. Does God in his word, command persons to immerse 
or to be immersed? 

I. No. He commands persons to be baptized; but says 
not one word concerning immersion for baptism. 

B. Does God say that any person ever was immersed for 
baptism? 

I. No. He does not. The word immerse is not once 
used in the whole of Divine revelation. 

B. Do the scriptures teach that the word baptize always 
denotes immerse? 

I. No. They say nothing of the kind. 

B. Do they intimate that immerse is the principal signi- 
fication of that word? 

I. No. The bible does not inform us that the Greek word 
(BftfT^w) for baptize or (Bcctfrw) its root signifies immerse. 

B. Is either of the words (s^fdairr^u or snA/Satfrw) which 
in the Greek language, frequently denote immerse, ever 
used for baptize? 

I. No. Neither of them is, either in the scriptures or in 
other books, used to denote baptism. 

B. What does the word baptize mean? 

I. It has a great variety of significations. Among these, 
it denotes to sprinkle, to wet a very small part, &c. 

B. When it is said that Philip and the Eunuch " went 
down into the water;" is immersion taught by these words? 

I. No; for if it was, then Philip must have been immersed 
as well as the Eunuch; because " they both went down into 
the water."* 

B. Was the act of going into the water baptism? 

I. No; because Philip baptized the Eunuch after they 
♦'went down into the water." 

*Acts 8: 38. 



REVIEW OP IMMERSION. 187 

B. Do the words " down into" ever mean under? 
I. No. Down into the meadow does not mean under the 
meadow; nor down-into the cellar, under the cellar, &c. 
B. Do the words " up out of," signify from under? 
I. No. When the Israelites came "up out of the land of 
Egypt,"* they did not come from under any of that country. 
When a man comes "up out of" the garden, he does not 
come from under it. When a person comes "up out of" 
the barn he does not come from under it. 

B. Does the word baptize ever signify to put persons en- 
tirely under water and then take them up again? 

I. No. Immersers never pretend that the word baptize 
denotes more than a very small part of what they do when 
they immerse persons. Indeed, it is by no means certain 
that the word baptize ever signifies to put a person entirely 
under water. 

B. Did John immerse in Enon or in Jordan? 

I. No. He himself declares, that when he baptized in 
Enon and in or at Jordan; he baptized "with water,"f not 
by putting persons under that element. 

B. Is there any water at Enon sufficiently deep to im- 
merse adults in? 

I. No. Sacred Geography informs us that there is no 
stream in all Palestine except the Jordan, so large that in it, 
(except in a freshet,) an adult person could be immersed. 
It also informs us that at or near Enon there is no water 
more than a very few inches deep. 

B. Why do you believe that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism? 

I. My conscience tells me, that is the right way. 

B. Does the word of God tell you that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism? 

I. No. The bible tells me no such thing. 

B. Then why did you adopt the notion that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism? 

I. I just made up my mind to be immersed ; and then I 
went to the scriptures to find something to support my deter- 
mination. 

B. Did you find any support for vour system in the word 
of God? 

*E.x, 32: 1. |Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 8, Luke 3: 16; John 1: 33. 



188 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. II, P. IV. 

I. No; not the least. Indeed I discovered an irreconcilea- 
ble opposition between my system and the word of God. 

13. What did you do then? 

I. Why, I determined to make such additions, alterations 
and amendments in the scriptures, as would make them cor- 
respond with my notions concerning immersion. 

B. How did you succeed? 

I. Not very well. I could find no word which really sig- 
nifies what I do in immersion. Nor dare I substitute my fa- 
vorite Latin word immerse for baptize in every passage 
where the original word or its root is used in the scriptures. 
If I had made this substitution in every such passage; it 
would have made sad work with the immersion part of my 
system. If I had said that Nebuchadnezzar was immersed 
" with the dew of heaven;" or that the Jews immersed them- 
selves in water-pots containing less than twenty-five gallons 
each;* my own system must, by this language, have been 
cut up by the roots. But with all my anxiety to alter the 
word of God, so as to make it suit my notions, I did not suc- 
ceed in making it say, in one passage, that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism. Besides, I find that my favorite 
words, dip, plunge, immerse, imbue, overwhelm, and the like, 
do not always or generally or even at any time, express 
what I do in immersion. No one of these words ever de- 
notes to put a person under water and then immediately take 
him up again from under its surface. 

B. What will you do to escape from this difficulty? 

I. I do not know. But I would rather give up the bible 
entirely, than forsake my long cherished, much-loved, ex- 
clusive notion that immersion is the only mode of baptism. 

B. I thought so. You do not love immersion because it 
is taught, as you may fancy, in the word of God ; but you 
love that holy book only so far as you think it teaches im- 
mersion to be the only mode of baptism. It may be well for 
you to lay aside this your superstitious bigotry, and hereaf- 
ter take the scriptures for your only rule of duty in every 
religious act. See to it that you have a Divine command 
for every part of your religion. If you do this, you will 

*See Dan. 4: 25 in Eng. and 4: 30 in Greeek, Mark 7: 4 and Luke 11: 38 in Greek, 
compared with John 2: 6. 






Ch. 1, § 1.] SPRINKLING SCBIPTURAL BAPTISM. 189 

soon lay aside your notion that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. 

BOOK THIRD. 

SPRINKLING A MODE OF BAPTISM. 

PART FIRST. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY FOR SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER I. 

SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM TAUGHT IN THE SCRIP- 
TURES. 

1. That sprinkling is a mode of baptism, is expressly 
taught in the word of God. The King of Zion says to his 
spiritual Israel in New Testament times ; " Then will I 
sprinkle clean water upon you."* This prediction cannot 
relate to the Jewish ceremonial washings. These had been 
in use more than nine hundred" years before this prediction 
was delivered by the prophet. That which was future when 
it was spoken by Divine authority, as was this prediction, 
could not refer to what had then existed nine hundred years. 
It must therefore refer to after ages. No new additional 
and permanent ordinances were, after this prediction, insti- 
tuted in the Old Testament church. This must therefore re- 
fer to New Testament times. In the christian church, wa- 
ter is used by Divine authority, in the ordinance of baptism. 
God has not required, authorized or permitted, men to use 
water in any religious rite after the death of Christ, except 
in the holy ordinance of baptism. But the prophet predicts 
that water is, by Divine authority, to be used in New Testa- 
ment times ; and that it is to be sprinkled upon- persons. 
No language can more clearly show, than this prediction 
does, that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. If water was 
used by Divine authority, in the christian church, in any 
other religious ordinance except baptism ; then there might 
be a doubt as to which of these the prediction related. But 
since God requires water to be used in no religious ordinance 
except baptism ; there can therefore be no doubt on the sub- 
ject. The Lord expressly declares by the mouth of the 

*Ezek. 36: 25. 



190 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

prophet; "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you." 
Language cannot be more explicit and positive than this. 
In the fulfillment of this prophecy, he will "sprinkle clean 
water upon" his people, either by himself or by his minister- 
ing servants ; or he will sprinkle the water himself, and also 
authorize others to do so. But whether he sprinkles water 
himself, or authorizes others to do so; he, in either case, 
claims to be the author of the action. He is properly repre- 
sented as doing that which he directs others to do. This 
claim he makes in the matter of baptism.* From this, it is 
therefore manifest, that when others, by his authority, "sprin- 
kle clean water upon" persons in baptism, (the only ordi- 
nance in which he directs water to be used in the christian 
church ;) he claims to be the administrator of the ordinance, 
(a). The Lord Jesus Christ does what his servants do in 
obedience to his command and by his authority. He there- 
fore sprinkles clean water, when his ministering servants do 
so in his name and by his authority. This prediction can- 
not be fulfilled unless clean water is sprinkled on persons in 
baptism ; for that is the only ordinance in which water is, 
in the christian church, used by Divine authority. That 
this sprinkling does not denote the work of the Spirit, is man- 
ifest from the language itself and from the connection in 
which it is found. The language is ; I will " sprinkle clean 
water upon you." It is not ; I will sprinkle you with the 
Spirit. It is with water, they are to be sprinkled. The 
connection teaches the same truth. The next verse says ; 
" A new heart also will I give you."f " A new heart also'' 
or in addition to this sprinkling, was to be given to them. 
The new heart which is produced by the holy Spirit in the 
soul at the moment of regeneration, is not therefore this 
sprinkling, but given in addition to it. Moreover, it is an 
essentially different work. It is therefore evident, as lan- 
guage can make it, that the expression ; " then will I sprin- 
kle clean water upon you," teaches that sprinkling is a mode 
of baptism ; and that God's spiritual Israel, the members of 
the New Testament church, are to be baptized by sprinkling 
clean water upon them. 

Of the blessed Jesus, it is declared by the prophet ; he 

*See John 4: 1. 2. (a) This claim is proper, on the principle that what a person does 
by another, he does by himself. fSee Ezek. 36: 25. 26. 



Cil. 1, § 1.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 191 

shall "sprinkle many nations."* The Eunuch was read- 
ing a part of the language found in connection with this 
passage when he "was sitting in his chariot.' 7 From this 
prophetic description of Christ, Philip "preached unto him 
Jesus," and "baptized him."f The only passage in the 
whole of this portion of Isaiah's prophecy, which gives the 
least intimation of the use of water, is that in which it is said ; 
he shall "sprinkle many nations.' 7 But from hearing this 
prophetic scripture explained, the Eunuch desired to be bap- 
tized. It appears therefore that this sprinkling mentioned 
by the prophet, was explained by Philip to be the applica- 
tion of water in baptism. Since Philip baptized the Eunuch 
after preaching Jesus to him from this prophetic description 
of the Son of God; we are clearly taught that Christ, by his 
servants, shall " sprinkle many nations" in baptism. As 
we are taught that many nations shall be sprinkled ; we are 
not entirely without instruction as to that mode of baptism. 
The declaration ; he shall " sprinkle many nations, 77 con- 
tains positive evidence that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. 
The Hebrew word (nTi) nere used by the Spirit of God, 
literally signifies to "sprinkle. 77 That part of the verb(a), 
which generally expresses causality, is, in this passage, em- 
ployed by inspiration. The idea therefore when expressed 
in the most literal form of words possible, would be ; " he 
shall cause many nations to be sprinkled, 77 or "he shall 
cause 77 men " to sprinkle many nations. 77 This is precise- 
ly the force of the words, he shall "sprinkle many nations," 
used in the common English translation of the bible. This 
same Hebrew word (ft 75) is very frequently used in the 
Old Testament. It is used in the expressions ; the priest 
"shall sprinkle him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy 
seven times ;" — "the priest — shall sprinkle of the oil with 
his finger seven times ; 7 ' — " he shall— sprinkle the house 
seven times,"! and in a great variety of other passages(J). 

*Isa. 52: 15. fActs 8: 33. 33. 35. 38, compared with Isa. 52. 13-15 and 53: 1-8 (a) 
The Hiphil conjugation. See Heb. Grammars. JSee Lev. 14: 7. 16: 51 in Heb. 

(b) This Hebrew word (^75/ a * s0 si g n 'fi es to spatter, to leap for joy and to re- 
joice. (See Gibbs' and other Heb. Lexicons.) But it does not, (as Mr. Bliss teaches 
in his letters on baptism, p. 51,) denote astonish. It is by no means certain that this 
word ever has this signification. If it ever has, it is an exceedingly unusual meaning. 
That such a sense cannot belong to the word in Lev. 14: 7. 16. 51. is perfectly certain. 
No one, not even an immerser, would be willing to say, the priest — shall astonish of the 
oil with his finger seven times, &c. Mr. Bliss, in his remarks on this word, is very 



192 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

The language of God's word therefore, both in the original 
and in the English translation of this passage, clearly and 
explicitly declares, that Christ, by his ministering servants, 
"shall," in New Testament times, "sprinkle many nations" 
in the administration of the holy ordinance of baptism. 

2. The word baptize signifies to sprinkle. That the word 
(BatfTi^w) for baptize has a great variety of significations, 
is certain(a^). When this is the fact in relation to any word, 
it becomes a matter of importance to be able to ascertain its 
exact meaning in any book or passage of a book in which it 
may be used. How can this be done ? is an important in- 
quiry. If the word, the exact meaning of which is sought, 
is a very important one, the importance of knowing its ex- 
act signification becomes proportionably great. If we would 
ascertain the definite meaning of any word as it is used in 
any book, or in any passage of the works of an author, we 
must not take what may possibly be its signification in one 
or two places, and then assert that this is the only proper 
meaning of the word. Such a course may pass with igno- 
rant demagogues, with deliberate deceivers, and with those 
who mistake their assertions for proof. In Dictionaries or 
Lexicons, the usual meanings of a word are generally found. 
But to ascertain the exact meaning of a word in any partic- 
ular passage of any book, one or both of two ways may be 
adopted. One is from the connection. This may be such 
that but one meaning will make sense in the passage. In 
that case the connection must determine what meaning is to 
be attached to the word. Another mode by which the exact 
signification of a word may be determined, is, by having it 

(a)B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 1; B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 2, § 4. 

careful to omit sprinkle, though this is its radical meaning. His liberal charge of "gross 
perversion" made against the translators of the Bible, because they gave the radical 
and usual meaning to this word in the English of Isa. 52: 15, may possibly rest upon him- 
self, unless the monomania with which he intimates he was troubled for more than 40 
years, may be offered as an apology for him. (See pp. §4, 77, of his book.) To show 
that he is not absolutely free from the crime which he charges so frequently upon oth- 
ers, one out of the multitude of false assertions which he makes, will be here mention- 
ed. He affirms (on p. 71,) that " Matthew Henry" and others whom he names, "agree" 
that the jailer's family " were all converted." Henry (on Acts 16: 25-34, see Vol. vi, 
p. 169, [par. 3.] Phil. Ed. 1S38,) says the exact contrary. His language used as if ad- 
dressed to the jailer, is-, "Those of thy house that are infants, shall be admitted into 
the visible church with thee," &c. Mr. Bliss perhaps referred to the Baptist edition 
of Henry's Exposition, in which immersers have made a number of alterations. Men 
who can alter the word of God to make it suit their system, will not hesitate to alter 
the writings of man for the same unholy, unscriptural purpose. If persons will alter the 
Bible in order to sustain immersion, they will do almost any thing else for the same 
purpose. 






Gh. 1, §2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 193 

defined or described by the author who uses it. In this last 
way, the exact meaning of a word, as used by any good wri- 
ter, can always and certainly be ascertained. If the word 
(Ba7r<r»Joj) for baptize is thus defined and described in Divine 
revelation, then its exact scriptural meaning can be certain- 
ly known. In relation to the exact scriptural signification 
of this Greek word (Batfri^u) it may be remarked, (1.) 
That it does not, from the connection in which it is used in 
any passage of God's word, necessarily denote any one thing 
which is done in immersion(a). This will be evident to any 
one who reads with care those passages which mention bap- 
tism with water.* (2.) It is frequently so used that it can- 
not possibly signify any part of what is done in immersion. 
(£). Those passages of scripture which mention baptism 
without water clearly teach this truth. f (3.) It is frequent- 
ly so used that sprinkling and nothing else, will make sense 
in the passage(c)|. (4.) To sprinkle is one legitimate 
meaning of this word(d), as given in the Lexicons. (5.) 
The root (bo^t™) from which it is derived, signifies to sprin- 
kle (^)§. This the Lexicons also teach. (6.) In every 
passage of scripture in which baptism with water is required 
or mentioned, jj sprinkling may be or may have been the 
mode. (7.) When God in his word expressly mentions the 
mode of baptism, he calls it sprinkling(e). Of this ordinance 
the King of Zion has said to his people in New Testament 
times ; " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you ;" and 
again, it is declared of him, " he shall sprinkle many na- 
tions. ?; ft Here Omniscience defines baptism to be the sprink- 
ling of clean water upon his spiritual Israel. (8.) The 
mode of baptism is often described in the scriptures of truth. 
In these descriptions it is called sprinkling. The Old Tes- 
tament ceremonial washings are collectively denominated 
" divers washings" (Bairntf^oic;) or baptisms.** In the orig- 
inal Greek these washings are expressly called baptisms. 
The mode in which water and other fluids was applied in 
these washings or baptisms, is repeatedly mentioned in the 

(a) See B. i, P. vii, Ch. 1, § 4, B. ii, P. i, Ch. 4, § 7. 8. *See Mat. 3: 11, Mark 1: 9, 
Luke 3: 16, John 1: 26. 33. (b) B. i, P. v, Ch. 1. 2. and 3, and B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7, § 1-10. 
tSee Mat. 20: 22, Luke 12: 50. (c) See Ch. 2, § 3-5. JSee 1 Cor. 10: 1. 2. compared 
with Ex. 14: 21. 22. (d) § 4, and B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1. §See Dan. 4: 30: Lev. 14: 6. 
51, Luke 16: 21, all in Greek. ||See Mat. 3: 0. 11. 13. 14. 16, Acts 8: 38 and 9: 18. &c. 
(e) § 1. ITEzek. 36: 25, Isa. 52: 15. **Heb. 9: 10 in Greek. 

13 



194 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

word of God. This mode is definitely and expressly, and 
frequently called sprinkling(a). In three different places 
in this same chapter in which these " divers washings' 7 or 
baptisms are mentioned, the mode in which substances were 
applied in these baptisms, is expressly said to have been by 
sprinkling. Of the mode by which these baptisms were admin- 
istered, it is expressly stated that 4 ' the blood of bulls and of 
goats and the ashes of a heifer" were used in "sprinkling 
the unclean. 77 This washing or baptism is positively said to 
have been by sprinkling. It is stated again, that " Moses — 
took the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet 
wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the 
people. 77 This is another of those " divers washings 77 (satf- 
rjfT^oj?) or baptisms, which was certainly performed by sprink- 
ling. Moreover, it is said that Moses " sprinkled' 7 — with 
blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.' 7 * 
This washing or baptism is also positively declared to have 
been performed by sprinkling. Three of these " divers 
washings 77 or (BaTrrjtfjuio^) baptisms, are here mentioned. 
The mode of the baptism is mentioned in each case, and that 
mode is expressly called sprinkling. God, in these and in 
many other, passages of scripture(Z>), describes the word 
(BaTTTj^w) for baptize. He thus shows that when he uses it 
he intends to give it a definite signification. He informs us 
also what that signification is. He tells us positively that 
when he uses this word (Bair-n^w) for baptize, it means to 
sprinkle. Thus we are expressly taught both by Divine and 
human wisdom, and in a great variety of ways, that the 
word baptize signifies to sprinkle(c). 

(a) § 3. *Heb. 9: 13. 19. 21. (b) See passages quoted in $ 3. 

(c) The history of the word baptize deserve here a passing remark. This word 
(BaTT'Tl^w) >s used by Homer, the earliest Greek writer, (See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 
2, (note b,) and § 4.) It is used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament 
which was made about 253 years before Christ. (See $ 3.) Nearly 200 years before 
the birtli of our Saviour, it is found in the Apocrypha, (S*ee B. ii, P. ii, (h. 2, § 1.) In 
its various modifications, it is employed ninety-three times in the New Testament, (See 
B. ii, P. i, Ch. 1, § S.) It is frequently used by Josephu3. He wrote soon after the 
Romans destroyed Jerusalem. This event took place in A. D. 70. Many classical 
heathen writers among the Greeks, besides Homer, use this word, (See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 
2, § 4.) By the early christians who wrote in Greek, it is often employed. Soon after 
Greece was conquered by the Romans, about 1»>0 years before Christ, it was introduced 
into the Latin language. The early christians who wrote in Latin, often used this 
word by merely substituting the Roman for the Greek letters. Jerome, about the year 
390, used it in his Latin translation of the Bible, commonly called " The Vulgate." It 
became a part of the English language, almost in its first origin. The present trans- 
lation of the Bible into English, was completed in 1610, and published the next year. 



Ch. 1, § 3.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 19& 

3. Sprinkling is the only mode of baptism definitely men~ 
Honed in the word of God. Baptism is often mentioned in 
the scriptures when the mode is not stated. It is also fre- 
quently mentioned in such connections as to render it im- 
possible for the word to denote the application of water in 
any mode(a). But in every passage of scripture where the 
mode of baptism is explicitly mentioned, sprinkling is spo- 
ken of as that mode. The Old Testament ceremonial wash- 
ings are collectively called (jRaierKf^ois) baptisms.* Each 
of these is therefore one baptism. Whenever, in the whole 
of Divine revelation, the mode of any one or more of these 
washings or baptisms, is definitely mentioned, sprinkling is 

(a) See B. i, P. v, Chs. 1. 2 and 3. *Heb. 9: 10 in Greek. 
But for several centuries before this, the word baptize formed a part of our language. 
It has done so ev^r since. It may indeed be said that the English language is a com- 
pound made up of several others. In it, as component parts, are found a greater or less 
number of words which have been transferred from more than twenty different lan- 
guages, ancient and modern. As examples of such transferred words, immerse from 
the low Latin, hymn from the Greek, cherub and seraph from the Hebrew, dernier from 
the French, &c, may be mentioned. Before the year 1C10, ten or twelve translations 
of the scriptures and portions of the scriptures into English had been made. WicklifF 
completed his translation in the year 1332. Copies of it are now found in some few 
libraries. Tyndal completed his in 1530 ; another was published in 1541- another in 
1549: another in 1551; and others at other dates. A few copies of these are yet ex- 
tant in some large libraries. In all these, as far as known, the word baptize is used. 
This word (BaTfTJ^W^ nas been in use among the best Greek writers for more than 
2500 years. It is now, and has for hundreds of years, been a component part of the 
English language. Its use is therefore as legitimate and proper as that of any other 
word in our language. 

Immersers used the present English translation of the scriptures for more than 200 
years after it was first published in 1611. During all this time, they sanctioned the use 
of the word baptize which it contained. They were so decidedly in iavor of this word 
that they even adonted it as a denominational name. From this very word, they cal- 
led themselves Baptists. Thus, for more than 200 years, they have done all they pos- 
sibly could, to establish the claims of this word to be a part of the English language. 
By the course they have pursued all this time, they have taught that it was the most 
proper English term by which to express the idea contained in the Greek word 
(B(X'7r'TI?w) for baptize. Now, and for a few years past, these same Baptists, yet 
wearing this word for a name, represent the use of it in the English New Testament, 
as a "heaven-daring crime," (See Bliss on Baptism.) Let it be remembered too, that 
this very word (ftOLrfriYu} is one which the Spirit of God uses in revealing to us his 
will. Moreover, it has been employed for more than 200 years by this same denomi- 
nation of people to express this christian ordinance. But now, to use it thus, they in- 
timate, is a " heaven-daring crime." When for more than 200 years, they used the Bi- 
ble which contains this word, (and not a few of them, do so still;) were, _and are tnev 
deceiving their followers 1 or are they deceiving them now by saying so many hard 
things against the present use of the word baptize in the New Testament? It im- 
merser preachers have, ^s they affirm in their present declarations against the English 
Bible, been palming a false translation of the scriptures upon their followers for more 
than 200 years, in the shape of what they, with contemptuous blasphemy, otten call 
Kin<* James' Bible; if not a few of them yet use it in their pulpits, as is notoriously 
the fact • then it is truly high time for the public to be on their guard against them. 
If they have, for more than 200 years, been thus deceiving those who have been receiv- 
ing them as the Lord's messengers, whether this deception has been from ignorance 
or design; it is certainly proper they should now be carefully watched. 



196 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. Ill, P. I. 

the mode expressly named. These " washings" or baptisms 
are said to be administered by sprinkling in a great variety 
of passages of scripture. But, in no instance, is any other 
mode of performing these " washings" or baptisms, express- 
ly stated. The mode of baptism is either not explicitly men- 
tioned, or in some form of words it is denominated sprink- 
ling. When the terms wash or purify or the like, are used, 
they do not describe the mode. They merely teach the fact 
that a washing or baptism was administered in some mode, 
without specifying what that was. In more than twenty in- 
stances in the passages referred to,* these baptisms are ex- 
pressly said to be by sprinkling. In these passages, water 
and blood are often said to be sprinkled on persons in per- 
forming those ceremonial washings which God, by his ser- 
vant calls (BuirTi&ixoig) baptisms.! These baptismal wash- 
ings by sprinkling, are mentioned in the New Testament as 
well as in the Old. Only a part of them have been referred 
to. But in every passage in which the mode of these bap- 
tisms is expressly mentioned, it is, in some form of words, 
denominated sprinkling ; and in no instance is it, in any 
form of language, expressly said to be by immersion. 

The Hebrew word (^ft) usually translated into Greek 
by (Bowrrw) the root of that for baptize, is, in one passage in 
the Septuagint(a) rendered by (Bewrn^w) baptize itself. The 
passage is this ; Naaman — "went down and (s/3aa<n(ra<ro) 
"dipped" or baptized " himself seven times in" (sv) "Jor- 
dan" or with its waters.f That the Hebrew word here 
translated into Greek by (Bair<ri%ui) baptize and into English 
by dip, does not indicate the mode by which water was ap- 
plied in the case of this captain of the Syrian army, is mani- 
fest from several considerations. (1.) The word (^J-p) 
used by the prophet in his direction to Naaman, does not ex- 
press mode. It expresses what is done ; not the mode by 
which the act is performed. Elisha directed him to wash in 
or with the waters of the Jordan. (2.) He understood what 

*See Lev. 4: 6. 17 and 5: 9 and 7: 2 and 8: 11. 19. 24. 30 and 9: 12. 18 and 14: 7. 27. 51 
and 16: 14. 15. 19, Num. 8: 7 and 19: 4. 13. 18-21, Heb. 9: 13. 19. 21 and 11: 28. fHeb. 
9:10 in Greek, (a) The Septuagint, or the Seventy, is the translation of the Hebrew 
of the Old Testament into the Greek language. It is so called, because about seventy 
Greek scholars are supposed to have been engaged in the work. It was made about 
the year 283 before the birth of Christ. Septuagint is a modified Latin word for seven- 
ty. tSee 2 (called in Greek 4) Kings, 5: 10. 12. 13. 14 in Hebrew, Greek and in Eng- 
lish. 



Ch. 1 § o.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 197 

the prophet said. This is certain; because he says; — " may 
I not" (^ni) " wasn in' ? the rivers of Damascus "and be 
clean." (3.) His servants also understood the prophet's di- 
rections ; for they used the same word, when they urged 
him to "wash and be clean." Here the word wash which 
does not express mode, is three times used in reference to 
this transaction. There is no probability therefore that 
(b!H to) tne otner word used in relation to the same transac- 
tion, differs materially in its signification from these three. 
But if this last word does express mode, it denotes to sprin- 
kle. This is manifest (1.) From the fact that this Hebrew 
word often signifies to wet a small part, to sprinkle and the 
like(a). It appears (2.) From the fact that the law required 
the leper, in his ceremonial washings, to be sprinkled seven 
times.* (3.) Only a small part of his body was leprous. 
This we learn from the intimation given that he was capa- 
ble of attending to the laborious business of a Syrian com- 
mander, f This he could not have done ; if any considera- 
ble portion of his body had been infected with that most 
loathsome and distressing disease, the leprosy. His language 
in relation to what he supposed Elisha would have done, 
teaches the same fact. He said; "I thought, he will — 
strike his hand over the place and recover the leper."! 
This language teaches that only one place or a small pro- 
portion of his body, was leprous. This part was what need- 
ed a cure ; this part therefore and this only, needed to have 
the remedy applied to it. Naaman desired to have this dis- 
eased "place" cured. To this the attention of Elisha was 
directed. To this the water must be applied in order to ef- 
fect a cure. It was this therefore, the prophet directed to be 
washed. He must perform this washing himself. It ap- 
pears then that he, as a leper to be cleansed, had to wash, 
by sprinkling, the part diseased, in order that a cure might 
be effected. If therefore the mode of Naaman's washing is 
intimated by the use of the word (BCMr«n£w) for baptize, the 
intimation is that it was by sprinkling. 

The word (£i^^) which signifies to frighten, is in the 
Septuagint, once translated into Greek by the word (bolit- 
tj£w) for baptize.§ In English it is translated frighten ; 

(a)B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 7; B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 4. *See Lev. 14: 7. f2 Kings 5:1-18, 
J8 Kings 5: 11. $See Isa. 21; 4 in Heb. Gv. and Eng, 



198 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

44 fearfulness affrighted me." The mode by which the fear 
is produced is not mentioned here. The fact that it is pro- 
duced, not the mode by which the person is affrighted, is 
taught in the passage. It will appear evident therefore to any 
one who will carefully examine this subject that the use of 
the word (Ba^w) for baptize in the Septuagint forms no 
exception to the proposition that sprinkling is the only mode 
of baptism definitely mentioned in the word of God. 

4. The root (Batfrw) from which the word (Bowrn^w) for 
baptize, is derived, signifies to sprinkle. This is one mean- 
ing of the Greek word(a). It is seldom used in the New 
Testament(J). In one passage it denotes to wet the end of 
the finger. This is truly a very small part of the whole body. 
The rich man in torment, asks that Lazarus "may dip" 
(Ba4>?i) " the tip of his finger in water and cool" his 
"tongue."* This word cannot here signify more than to wet 
an exceedingly small part of the whole person. In another 
passage it is difficult to determine its exact import. It is the 
one in which our Saviour points out the person of his betray- 
er. He declared that he to whom he gave " a sop" or small 
piece u when" he had (na-^as) " dipped it,"t would betray 
him. Whether this word (Ba-^ac;) denotes to take up, break 
off, take from a dish, or out of a liquid or to wet a small part 
or the whole of the sop, is not easily determined. But when 
it was dipped; he gave it to Judas. The other text in which 
this word (bcwttw) is found, is used in describing the Captain 
of Salvation as a conquerer returning victorious from the 
field of battle, with his "vesture" (Bj/3aja|usvov) " dipped in 
blood."| The mode in which the warrior's garments are 
stained with or dipped in blood, is, (not by taking them off 
and immersing them in the purple fluid, but) by the blood 
gushing out upon them from the wounded adversary or fal- 
len foe. This word therefore in the New Testament, signi- 
fies to wet a very small part of the person ; and to stain the 
vesture by sprinkling it profusely with blood. 

In the Septuagint(c), the word (Ba<<rw) is used fourteen 
times to express the signification of the Hebrew term(^^) 
which is translated into English by the words ''cfo'p" or "dip- 

(a)See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1. ^;Only three times. *Luke 16: 24 in Greek. fJohn 
13; 28 in Greek. JRev. 19: 13 in Greek. (c)The O. T. in Greek. 



Ch. 1. .§ 4.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 199 

ped;" — "plunge in the ditch;" — and "wet" with dew. # 
This same Greek word also denotes to wash, sprinkle, tinge, 
and the iike(a). This Hebrew word (^ft) is once trans- 
lated into Greek by a term (/xoXuvw) which signifies to defile, 
pollute, disgrace, dye, stain or tinge. In the passage where 
it is used ; it is translated by the word dip. Joseph's breth- 
ren (s/xoXuvav) " dipped" u his coat in the blood" of the kid 
which they had killed.t Their design was to make their 
father believe that Joseph had been killed by some ravenous 
beast. To do this they must stain his coat with blood. The 
mode of doing this to produce the deception, must be simi- 
lar to that by which the garment of a person who had been 
killed by a wild beast, would be stained. This would be by 
the blood of the person killed by the animal, flowing out up- 
on his clothes. His coat, in this way, would be partly stain- 
ed with blood ; not entirely immersed in it. The Greek 
word (BcctfTw) from which that for baptize is derived, is, in 
some passages, used to express an exceedingly gentle sprink- 
ling. To be "wet with the dew of heaven," is to be sprin- 
kled with very small drops. Every one knows that dew 
falls in drops almost imperceptibly minute. The word there- 
fore which expresses the mode by which a person is wet 
with dew, must denote a very gentle sprinkling. This is 
(bomttw) the root from which the word (Batf<n£w) for baptize 
is derived. J The same word is used to denote the wetting of 
a very small part of what is mentioned. In the ceremonial 
purification of a leper who had been "healed;" the priest 
was required to command to be taken " for him that" was 
" to be cleansed, two birds alive and clean, and cedar-wood, 
and scarlet, and hyssop;" and when one of the birds was killed, 
it is said; he "shall" (bol-^si) "dip" all these "in the blood of the 
bird that was killed."^ Now, nothing can be more manifest 
than the fact that but a very small part of the living bird, the 
wood, scarlet and hyssop, could be wet when they were all 
dipped in the blood of the dead bird. To suppose that these 
were put entirely under the blood of the bird which had been 
slain, would be absurd. A bird of any species is an animal 

*See Ex. 12: 22, Lev. 4: 6 and 9: 9, and 14: 6. 51, Nam. 19: 18, Deut. 33: 24, Josh. 3: 
15, Ruth 2: 14, 1 Sam. (Gr. 1 Kings) 14: 27, 2 Kings (Gr. 4 Kings) 8: 15, Job 9: 31, Dam 
4: 33, Heb. and Gr. 4: 30 and 5: 21, in Heb. Gr. and Eng. (a)See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ 1. 
tGen. 37: 31 in Heb. Gr. and Eng. JSee Dan. 4: 33 (Gr. 4: 30) in Greek and English. 
§See Lev. 14: 2-6. 51 in Gr and Eng. 



200 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. t. 

which, for its size, has very little blood. It would be impossi- 
ble to immerse any one " clean bird" in the blood of any 
other, and much less all the articles here mentioned. The 
same word is used where it is said ; thou shalt " plunge" 
(s/3a>^ as) " me in the ditch."* When a person is plunged 
in the ditch, he is not put all over under water ; he is only 
besmeared with mud or filth of some kind. In the Septua- 
gint therefore this word (Ba<7r<rw) from which baptize is deri- 
ved, denotes (1.) To wet a very small part ; (2.) To sprin- 
kle with dew; (3.) To besmear with mud or filth. This 
root therefore denotes to sprinkle. As the word (Bccm£w) 
for baptize, being derived from it, cannot signify more than 
its root(a) ; so baptize must signify the most gentle sprin- 
kling of which a conception can be formed ; because the 
sprinkling which it expresses, is or may be more gentle 
than that of the falling dew. As the root of the word for 
baptize denotes to wet a very small part; so the word itself 
must signify to wet as small if not a smaller portion of what 
is baptized. From the passages here quoted, it is undenia- 
bly certain that the root (Boctfrw) from which the word (Boor- 
<n£w) for baptize, is derived, signifies to sprinkle in an ex- 
ceedingly gentle manner. 

5. The Hebrew word (^ft) which, in the Sepluagint, is 
translated by (Batfrw) the root from which baptize is derived, 
signifies to sprinkle. This Hebrew word often denotes a 
ceremonial washing ; while another (^jr* 1 -)) more frequent- 
ly indicates a literal cleansing. The dew falls in very small 
drops. They are so minute as to be sometimes almost or 
quite imperceptible to the senses. The word therefore which 
denotes to wet with dew must signify to sprinkle with small 
drops. This Hebrew word (^ft) * s usec * when it is said 
of Nebuchadnezzar ; "his body was wet with the dew of 
heaven."f It is certain therefore that it means to sprinkle ; 
because it is used to indicate a wetting with dew ; and this 
can only take place by an exceedingly gentle sprinkling. 
This same Hebrew word is used to express the wetting of a 
very small part of the bird, cedar-wood, scarlet, and hyssop, % 
mentioned in the cleansing of the leper. This Hebrew word 

*Job 9: 31 in Gr. and Eng. fa,) See p. n, Ch. 1, § 2. |Dan. 4: 30 in Heb. and 33 in 
Eng. |See Lev. 14: C. 51 in Heb. and Eng. 



Ch. 1, § 6.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 201 

therefore, since it denotes to wet with dew must signify to 
sprinkle. 

6. What is signified by christian baptism^ is denominated 
sprinkling. When, in the scriptures, what is signified by 
baptism, is, at any time so mentioned as to indicate the mode 
of the Spirit's influence ; it is expressly called sprinkling, 
or other words which signify to sprinkle are employed. 
This will be evident by a few examples, (1.) To denote the 
work of the Spirit in regeneration ; it is said " our hearts" 
are " sprinkled from an evil conscience."* (2.) To express 
the application of the blood of Christ to the soul at conver- 
sion, by the power of the Holy Ghost ; it is called " the 
blood of sprinkling ;" and the "sprinkling of the blood of 
Jesus Christ. "f (3.) The various operations of the Spirit 
which are, or may be, denominated, baptism with the Holy 
Ghost, are expressed by words which indicate sprinkling. 
The Holy Spirit, in his operations upon the souls of men, is 
said to drop as rain or dew or showers ; to be poured out 
upon them, as rain from a cloud or as tears from the eye ; 
to be given; to descend; to be shed; to come and to fall up- 
on them. J These words all indicate sprinkling. To pour 
out water as from a cloud upon the earth, is to sprinkle it 
profusely ; to fall as the rain or dew or as a shower is to fall 
in drops or to sprinkle ; to be shed down, is to fall or be 
poured down like a heavy shower. These expressions there- 
fore, so repeatedly made, show that spiritual baptism or the 
work of the Holy Ghost, being that which is signified in 
christian baptism(a), is expressed by sprinkling. Literal 
sprinkling in baptism is a proper external symbol or sign of 
this internal spiritual sprinkling or baptism with the Holy 
Ghost. It is clear therefore that the ordinance of christian 
baptism, which is the sign of spiritual sprinkling, must, or 
at least may be, administered by sprinkling. Between in- 
ternal and external sprinkling, there is an exact resem- 
blance. They are both by sprinkling. But immersion can- 
not be a sign of spiritual sprinkling ; because there is not the 
least similitude between sprinkling the blood of Christ, or 
the falling of the Spirit on the soul, and the entire submer- 

*Heb. 10: 22. tHeb. 12: 24, 1 Pet. 1: 2. JDeul. 32: 2 and 33: 28, Ps. 72: 6, Hos. 10: 
12 and 14- 5, Mic. 5: 7, Ps. 77: 17, Prov. 1: 23, lsa. 32: 15 and 44: 3. Joel 2: 28, John 1. 
32. Acts 2: 4. 17 and 4: 8. 31, and 10: 44. 43 and 11: 15, Rom. 5: 5, Tit. 3: 6. (a)See B. 
i,P. iv, Ch.l, $9. 



202 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

sion of the body in water. Literal immersion cannot be a 
sign to symbolize or represent spiritual sprinkling; while 
this symbolical representation is manifest in literally sprink- 
ling clean water upon the person. 

Besides, baptism is a sacrament(a). In the sacrament the 
resemblance between the sign and the thing signified, ought 
to be as exact as possible. That which is signified in chris- 
tian baptism, is expressed by sprinkling ; the sign therefore 
to secure a resemblance, must be by sprinkling. The work 
of the Spirit, which is signified in this ordinance, is spiritu- 
ally pure ; therefore to resemble this, clean or pure water, 
ought to be used in administering the ordinance of christian 
baptism. 

7. The scriptural mode of performing ceremonial washings, 
is by sprinkling. The mode of performing these, is not al- 
ways mentioned in the word of God. But when it is men- 
tioned, it is always represented as being performed by sprink- 
ling. Either the word sprinkle is used or other terms 
which signify to sprinkle. In no case is any one scriptural 
ceremonial washing said to be performed by immersion # (£). 
The material used in these purifications, is said to be sprin- 
kled, whenever the mode is mentioned. The " blood" used 
in these, was sprinkled :f The "water 7 ' was sprinkled :f 
"Ashes" were sprinkled:§ Oil was sprinkled:Jj Persons 
were sprinkled. The priests and Levites and all the " people" 
are said to have been sprinkled.il Things were sprinkled ; 
such as the " altar," the " horns of the altar," the " taberna- 
cle," the " book," houses, the " vessels of the ministry," the 
" tent," the " mercy-seat," before " the mercy-seat, " # * &c. 
Words which do not express mode, such as wash, cleanse, 
and the like, are occasionally used to denote ceremonial 
purifications. But in every instance where their mode is 
expressed, it is, in some form of words, uniformly denomina- 
ted sprinkling. Christian baptism is a ceremonial washing. 
It is the only one to be used in New Testament times. The 
command in relation to this washing includes succession. 
The directions for other washings do not. The washing of 

(a)See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1 § 10. *See Heb. 9: 10. 13. 10. 21 and 11: 28 in Greek, Loke 
11: 38 in Greek, Lev. 4: 6. 17 and 5: 9, Num. 8: 7, &c. (b)$ 3. fSee Lev.7: 2 and 8: 19. 
24, Heb. 9: 19. 21 and 11: 28. JSee Nura 8: 7, Heb. 9: 19. §See Heb. 9: 13: ||See Lev. 
8: 11 and 14: 16. 27. ITNnm. 8: 7 and 19: 18, Heb. 9: 19. **Ex. 24: 6, Lev. 14: 51. 52, and 
16: 14. 15. 19, Heb. 9: 19. 21. 



Ch. 1, § 8.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 203 

the disciple's feet*(a) was under the Old Testament dispen- 
sation, and the direction on that subject did not include suc- 
cession. Baptism is not a washing for cleanliness. It is 
not administered for the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh."f It is not therefore a literal washing the design of 
which is to cleanse a part or the whole of the person. It 
does not, and cannot purify the soul (5). It is not therefore 
a spiritual washing which removes sinful pollution from the 
person. It must then be a ceremonial washing of those who 
are baptized. In such purifications, when a part is washed, 
the individual is "clean every whit."| This baptismal cer- 
emonial washing is an external sign of the work of the Spi- 
rit on the soul(c). It is a scriptural washing(d). But as 
scriptural ceremonial washings, whenever the mode is men- 
tioned, are represented, as being by sprinkling ; so baptism, 
as it is a scriptural ceremonial washing, must or at least may, 
be properly performed by sprinkling. 

8. Sprinkling is a baptismal seal. Christian baptism is a 
seal(e). As such it can only be applied to a part of what is 
sealed. To cover with the sealing material, the whole of 
what is intended to be sealed, does not confirm but destroys 
its validity(y). The size of a seal does not render it more 
or less valid, if it is not so large as to destroy its nature as a 
seal. The seal which is a quarter of an inch in diameter 
confirms as thoroughly what is sealed, as that would do 
which covered a thousand times greater surface. The least 
quantity of the sealing material, will confirm as really and 
be as valid, as if the quantity was increased. The least 
quantity therefore of water, the sealing material in baptism, 
applied to the smallest surface on or near the proper place, 
by a minister of Christ, in the name of the Trinity, is a bap- 
tismal seal equally valid with a larger quantity ; if the quan- 
tity is not so large as to destroy the nature of a seal. For 
not too small, but too large a quantity of the sealing mate- 
rial, destroys the nature of a seal and renders it invalid. 

The baptismal seal is to be applied to the forehead. The 
servants of God are to be " sealed, " and to be "sealed" in 
"their foreheads.' 7 § The name of God is thus " written" 

*See John 13: 5. 8. 10. 14. (^See B. i, P. iv, Ch: 1,~<$ 5. tl Pet. 3: 21. (b)See B. 
i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 16. $ John 13: 10. (c)See B, i, P. iv,"Ch. 1, $ 9. (d)See B. i, P. i, 
Ch. 1, § 1-4. (e)See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 11. (f)See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7, § 10. §See 
Song 4: 12, Ezek. 9: 4, 2 Cor. 1: 22, Eph. 1: 13, Rev. 7: 3 and 9: 4. 



204 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

or stamped on "their foreheads. 77 * That baptism therefore 
which is a seal, must be a quantity of water, the sealing ma- 
terial, no matter how small, applied to the forehead of the 
person baptized or sealed. Water sprinkled on the forehead 
is therefore a proper baptismal seal ; or sprinkling water 
upon the forehead of a person in the name of the Triune 
God, is christian baptism. 

9. Sprinkling is the only mode of baptism, that can be uni- 
versally administered. This holy ordinance is to be admin- 
istered in all climates, and in all seasons of the year, and 
to persons in every stage of any disease(a). The commission 
to baptize includes all this. The Lord Jesus Christ directs 
his ministering servants to "Go — and teach all nations, bap- 
tizing them;' 7 and to "preach the gospel to every crea- 
ture. 7 '! These directions show that the gospel is to be preach- 
ed in every nation ; and that persons in every condition 
in life are to be baptized, in the different nations of the earth. 
On this point, it may be remarked, (1.) That baptism by 
sprinkling can be administered in any climate. Wherever 
human beings can live, they can, at any season of the year, 
be baptized by sprinkling. This is self evident. (2.) In 
any disease, this mode of baptism may be adopted. It is per- 
fectly evident that any person in any stage of any disease, 
will not suffer by being baptized by sprinkling. Neither the 
burning heat of the torid zone, nor the insupportable cold of 
the frigid ; neither the ravages of disease, nor the thirsty, 
unwatered desert, can render sprinkling, as a mode of bap- 
tism, either impossible or improbable. Baptism may be thus 
administered with equal ease in the parched desert, in the 
frozen north and in the temperate plain. (3.) In all places 
where baptism is said to have been administered ; sprinkling 
may have been the mode. John might have baptized by 
sprinkling in or at "Jordan 77 , 77 — " in Enon 77 — "in Bethaba- 
ra beyond Jordan, 7 ' — or " in the wilderness. 77 | The "three 
thousand,' 7 — the " men and women,' 7 — "Simon, 77 — "the 
Eunuch,' 7 — " Cornelius — and — his friends, 77 — "Lydia, 7 ' — 
"the Jailer, 77 — "Paul 77 while standing, — " Crispus and 
Gaius, 77 — and the " household of Stephanus,' 7 § may have 

*Rev. 14: 1. (a)See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7, § 1. fMat. 28: 19, Mark 16: 15. JMat. 3: 6, 
Mark 1: 4. 6, John 1 : 28 and 3: 23 and 10: 40. $ Acts 2: 41 and 8: 12. 13. 38 and 10: 24. 4S 
and 16: 11. 13. 33 and 22: 16, 1 Cor. 1: 14. 16. 



Ch. 1, § 10.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 205 

been baptized by sprinkling. (4.) The commission given 
by our Saviour to his ambassadors to baptize, requires the 
ordinance to be administered in all climates, at all seasons, 
in all places and in all diseases. Sprinkling and that only 
can be made thus universal. That mode and that only can 
possibly be administered in some places where Jesus Christ 
commands baptism to be administered. That only can be 
safely or innocently practiced during the progress of some 
diseases. Even pouring for baptism, in some climates, would 
be impossible ; and in some diseases would increase the ma- 
lady or produce death. As sprinkling and that only can be 
practiced in all places and in all cases where baptism is, by 
the Saviour's command, to be administered ; so that must be 
a mode, if not the only mode of administering that ordinance. 
If sprinkling is not a mode of baptism ; then that ordinance 
cannot be administered when and where and to whom, the 
Lord Jesus Christ teaches in the commission, it is to be and 
will be administered. It is the only mode in fact that can 
become co-extensive with the commission to administer this 
ordinance. It must therefore be a mode, if not the only 
mode of baptism. 

10. That with which baptism is administered, descends up- 
on the baptized. A few instances will show this fact. (1.) 
When Nebuchadnezzar was "wet" (s^cttp^) or baptized "with 
the dew of heaven ; 7 '* the small drops of dew descended up- 
on him. (2.) When the Israelites were baptized in (sv) or 
with "the sea; 7 ' the spray of the sea must have descended 
upon them. They were not immersed or put entirely under 
water(a). While in "the midst of the sea ;" they were on 
"dry ground."t The water then could not be poured on 
them out of vessels ; and if it had been, it would have de- 
scended upon them. While the Israelites were walking on 
dry ground, through the opening made in the sea by Divine 
power; it was impossible for them to be baptized in any mode 
without the water descending upon them. Had they been 
immersed as the Egyptians were; the water must have come 
down upon them. In " the midst of the sea," they were on 
"dry ground." In such a situation, it was impossible to 
thrust them under water. But, as they were baptized while 
on dry ground in the opening made in the sea ; the water 

*Dan. 4: 33(Gr. 30)and o: 21 in Gr. and Eng. (a)B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7, § 4. fEx. 14: 22. 



206 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

must have descended upon them in spray while they were 
passing through. (3.) When they were baptized in (ev) or 
with u the cloud;"* the drops of rain were "poured" down 
upon them.t (4.) Of the "divers washings" (BatfrjtffAoic^or 
baptisms, the mode of which is mentioned in the word of 
God, many specimens are given. These are all by sprink- 
ling («). In these therefore the water and blood which 
w r ere sprinkled, descended upon what was in this way cere- 
monially cleansed. (5.) When persons were baptized with 
the Holy Ghost ; he is said to descend or fall, to be poured 
out, to be shed, &c.| upon them. That therefore with which 
persons were baptized, descended upon them. 

11. John intimates that he baptized by sprinkling. In 
speaking to his disciples of his baptism as a ceremonial wash- 
ing, he says to them of Christ ; " God giveth not the Spirit 
by measure" (sx |m,s<rpou) or out of a measure, "to him."§ 
Here John appears to be contrasting his baptism with water, 
with that which Christ received with the Spirit in his human 
nature. When therefore he declares that Christ did not re- 
ceive the one out of a measure ; it is clearly intimated that 
he did receive the other from John out of a measure capable 
of containing water. Thus he intimates that he baptized 
with water out of a measure ; or that he administered his 
baptism by sprinkling. 

12. Sprinkling as a mode of baptism, is often positively 
commanded in the word of God. To sprinkle is one mean- 
ing of the word baptize(7>J. Whenever therefore a com- 
mand to baptize is given, sprinkling as a mode is required, 
if baptism with water is intended. Because one meaning of 
the word baptize is to sprinkle ; every passage which com- 
mands baptism with water, requires it to be administered by 
sprinkling as one mode. Several particular commands may 
here be noticed. (1.) God sent John "to baptize with wa- 
ter."}! He was therefore required to administer his baptism 
by sprinkling ; because that is one meaning of the word 
baptize. (2.) Christ commands his ministering servants to 
baptize all nations ;^I and as the word baptize denotes to 
sprinkle, therefore they were to administer the ordinance of 
christian baptism by sprinkling as a mode. (3.) The inspi- 

*lCor. 10: 2 in Greek. tPs. 77: 17. (a)§ 7. fSee Ps. 72: 6"antl Acts 1: 5compared 
with Acts 2: 17 and 10: 44. 45 and 11: 15. 10, &.c. §John 3: 34 in Gr. (bj§ 2. |[Johu 
1: 33. TTMat. 2?: 19. 






Ch. 2, § 1 J SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 207 

red Peter commanded his hearers "on the day of Pentecost,'' 
to " be baptized."* (4.) Paul was directed to "be bapti- 
zed."f As baptize, a word which signifies sprinkle, is used, 
each of these commands requires sprinkling to be practiced as 
one mode of baptism. These, and other instances, show 
conclusively that baptism with water, by sprinkling, is a com- 
manded duty(a). Since sprinkling is one of the legitimate 
meanings of the word baptize(S), and since this mode may have 
been practiced in any place and under any circumstances in 
which baptism is, in the scriptures said to have been adminis- 
tered^), this must therefore be a mode, and maybe the only 
scriptural mode of baptism. 

13. In every passage of scripture in which baptism with 
water is mentioned, sprinkling, as one mode, is taught. Bap- 
tism with water is very frequently mentioned either directly 
or indirectly, in the word of God. In each of these passa- 
ges the word baptize which denotes to sprinkle, is used ; or 
the word sprinkle itself J is employed. All those passages 
therefore in which the word baptize is used to express the 
christian ordinance of baptism, or any other baptism with 
water, teach that sprinkling is a mode. Whether the word 
baptize, which signifies to sprinkle, is used, or the word 
sprinkle itself; the same truth is presented to the mind. 
The use of either word proves conclusively, that sprinkling 
is a mode of baptism ; because one meaning of the word bap- 
tize is to sprinkle. 

CHAPTER II. 

SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES OF SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAP- 
TISM. 

1. Jesus Christ was baptized by sprinkling. He was bap- 
tized to fulfill the demands of that law which required the 
priests to be washed with water, before they entered on the 
duties of their office(d). He had water applied to him in 
order "to fulfill all righteousness."^ As to fulfill all right- 
eousnes, is to comply, in every point, with all the demands 
of a righteous law ; so our Saviour, in order to be legally 
qualified to enter publicly upon the functions of the office of 

*Acts 2: 1. 38; See also 10: 48. t Acts 22: 16. (a) B. i, P. i, Ch. 1, § 1-4. (b)B. ii, 
P. ii,Ch.l, § 1. (c)§ 9. Jlsa. 52: 15, Ezek. 36: 25, Heb. 9: 10. 13. 19.21 in Greek. 
(d)See B. i, P. iii, Ch. 2, § 6. §Mat. 3: 15. 



208 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

a priest, which was one part of his Mediatorial work, was 
washed with water. This washing of the priests, is three 
times mentioned in the word of God. Moses was command- 
ed to "wash" Aaron and his sons " with water ;" and he 
" washed them with water."* God, by his servant, express- 
ly mentions the mode of this washing. " The Lord spake 
unto Moses, saying ; take the Levites." The word Levites, 
included the whole Tribe of Levi. Aaron and his sons were 
of this Tribe. What God directs to be done to the Levites, 
must include Aaron and his sons, as well as other members 
of the Tribe, unless they are excepted in some form of lan- 
guage. God is now about to mention the mode in which 
water was applied to the Levites. He said to Moses ; "thus 
shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them ; sprinkle water of 
purifying upon them."f Here we are expressly informed 
that the Levites were to be sprinkled with water when they 
were to be set apart to the service of God. Aaron was a 
11 Levite."| His sons were therefore Levites. The Levites 
then included Aaron and his sons. These last were set apart 
as priests under the Old Testament dispensation of the cove- 
nant.§ Not the least hint is contained in the scriptures, 
which could lead us to suppose that the mode by which 
Aaron and his sons were washed, differed in any respect 
from that by which the other Levites were washed. The 
Levites were washed by sprinkling. Aaron and his sons 
were Levites ; therefore they were washed by sprinkling. 
Jesus Christ had water applied to him in order to comply 
perfectly with that law which required water to be applied 
to the priests when they were about to enter publicly on the 
discharge of the duties of the priestly office. This law re- 
quired water to be sprinkled upon them ; therefore to com- 
ply perfectly with this law, Jesus Christ must have been 
sprinkled with water, when John, " to fulfill all righteous- 
ness," baptized him. If he was not sprinkled, then that part 
of the Divine command which required the " water of puri- 
fying" to be sprinkled, was not fulfilled by him. But as 
Christ did fulfill every part of this law as well as of all oth- 
ers, the water must have been sprinkled upon him, as God 
had directed. The righteousness of the law which he was 
about to fulfill in his baptism, required the water to be sprin- 

*Ex. 40: 12, Lev. 8: 6. fNum. 8: 7. JEx. 4: 14. $See Ex. 40: 13. 14. 15. 



Ch. 2, § 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 209 

kled. He therefore, as he fulfilled this law at his baptism, 
had water sprinkled upon him as the law required. Jesus 
Christ was therefore baptized by sprinkling. 

2. The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized by sprinkling. 
This Eunuch was sitting in his chariot, in his journey from 
Jerusalem to Gaza, when the Spirit of God directed Philip 
to approach him. He, at the time, was reading in Isaiah's 
prophecy. The passage upon which his attention was fixed 
at that particular instant, was this ; " He was led as a sheep 
to the slaughter, 7 ' &c. The Eunuch enquired of Philip, 
whether the prophet made this declaration " of himself " or 
" of some other man ;" or in other words, he desired to know 
from Philip, who was meant by the word " he," used by 
the prophet in the passage he was reading. To ascertain 
who is intended by " he," in this passage, it is necessary to 
look back and examine the preceding context. When this 
examination takes place, it will be found, that the word "he," 
in the passage which the Eunuch was reading, stands for 
" servant," as that word is used in this expression ; "Be- 
hold, my servant shall deal prudently." Then, if any one 
will read onward from this last passage, he will find it stated 
of this "servant;" — "He shall be exalted;" — He shall 
"sprinkle many nations;" — " He shall grow — as a root out 
of a dry ground;" — He "shall be despised and 'rejected of 
men;" — "He hath borne our griefs;" — "He was wounded 
for our transgressions ;" — " The Lord hath laid on him the 
iniquity of us all ;" — " He was oppressed ;" — " He was af- 
flicted ;" — "He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter." In 
these expressions ; " he" is said to do many things ; and 
among the rest, it is declared, " he shall sprinkle many na- 
tions." The prophet predicts the sprinkling of many nations. 
From this prophetic description of our Saviour's sufferings, 
Philip preached Christ to the Eunuch, and then baptized him 
as Isaiah had predicted. Isaiah in the very passage from 
which Philip preached, declares prophetically that many na- 
tions were to be sprinkled. One inspired man predicts the 
mode of baptism to be by sprinkling ; another, under the 
immediate direction of the Holy Spirit, baptizes the Eunuch 
with this prophecy before him. One inspired man mentions 
the mode in which baptism is to be administered ; another 

14 



210 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, I\ I. 

administers the ordinance(a). As one inspired man would 
not act in opposition to what another had said ; so it is per- 
fectly certain that Philip baptized the Eunuch by sprinkling; 
because the prophet, in the very passage from which he 
preached, had said; he shall "sprinkle many nations.' 7 * 
Thus by comparing scripture with scripture, it becomes ab- 
solutely certain to those who believe what God says in his 
word ; that the Eunuch was baptized by sprinkling. More- 
over, the word baptize which signifies to sprinkle, is used of 
this ordinance which was administered to the Eunuch. The 
same word was also used of John's baptism which our Sa- 
viour received(Z>). Both were therefore baptized by sprink- 
ling. 

3. Paul was baptized by sprinkling. He " arose and was 
baptized.' 7 ! If he had been baptized in any other way ex- 
cept by sprinkling; he would have lay, sat or kneeled down 
to receive the ordinance. Those who are immersed as a 
substitute for baptism, always lie down. Those who have 
water poured upon them for baptism, always kneel down or 
sit down. But persons never arise to receive the ordinance 
of baptism except when they are sprinkled. As therefore 
Paul "arose 7 ' to be "baptized ;" so he must have been bap- 
tized by sprinkling. In his case too, the word baptize which 
signifies to*sprinkle, is used of this ordinance. This two- 
fold evidence, the fact that he arose and the use of a word 
which denotes to sprinkle, must be an unanswerable proof 
to the unprejudiced mind that Paul was baptized by sprink- 
ling. 

4. Those who were baptized by John were sprinkled. That 
he administered his baptism by sprinkling, is proved, (1.) 
From the language used. Wherever his ceremonial wash- 
ing is definitely mentioned, the word baptize which denotes 
sprinkle, is employed. If, at any time, he had immersed for 
his ceremonial washing ; one of the words (sjx&cwrrw or s/a- 
fioLifTi^u) which sometimes evidently signify immerse, would 
have been used at least once for his baptism, when it is so 
frequently mentioned in the scriptures. But when the word 
baptize which signifies to sprinkle, but does not in the whole 
of Divine revelation, signify immerse(c), is uniformly em- 

fa)See Oh.l, § 1. *See Isa. 52: 13-15 and 53: 2-8 compared with Acts 8: 26-38. 
(b)§ 1. tActs 9: 18. (c)See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 1, $ 7. 8, B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1 $ 1, Ch. 1, $ ii. 






Ch. 2, § 5.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 211 

ployed to express his baptism ; the evidence is clear that he 
baptized by sprinkling. (2.) He baptized Jesus Christ by 
sprinkling(a) ; therefore that was his mode of baptism. 
There is not the least intimation given in the account of 
our Saviour's baptism, which can lead persons to suppose 
that John adopted, in the baptism of Christ, a mode which 
differed in any external point from that used by him when 
he baptized other persons. But as he baptized Christ by 
sprinkling ; that therefore was his mode. (3.) The number 
he baptized daily, proves that sprinkling was the mode he 
practiced(Z»). "John did no miracle ;"* and without a mi- 
racle, it would be absolutely impossible for one man to bap- 
tize in any mode except that of sprinkling, the numbers to 
whom he applied water. John therefore baptized by sprink- 
ling. All then baptized by him, are examples of persons 
baptized by sprinkling. 

5. The, whole nation of Israel were baptized by sprinkling. 
Their baptism took place when they were escaping from 
Egyptian bondage. At this time, they numbered " about six 
hundred thousand — men, besides' 7 women and '* children."f 
In this number, the Levites were not included.! In this 
enumeration, only men over twenty years of age, who were 
" able to go forth to war," are mentioned. § There must 
have been at least as many women as men. There were 
therefore at that time in the nation of Israel more than twelve 
hundred thousand persons over twenty years of age. This 
number would probably be less than one third of the whole 
people of Israel at that time ; as not more than one-third, 
perhaps not one-fourth part of the human race, reach the 
age of twenty. If there were six hundred thousand men over 
twenty; the same number of women; and three times as ma- 
ny persons under twenty as there were over that age ; then 
there would have been thirty-six hundred thousand persons 
under twenty, and twelve hundred thousand above that age ; 
or in the whole nation, excepting the tribe of Levi, there 
would have been forty-eight hundred thousand ; and inclu- 
ding that tribe, there could not have been less than five mil- 
lions in all. But to say that at least two millions five hun- 
dred thousand individuals were included in the whole nation 

(a)§ 1. (b)B. ii, P, i, Ch. 7, $ 6. *Jobn 10: 41. tEx. 12: 37, Nam 1: 1-40. }See 
Num. 1:47. §N urn. 1:3. 



212 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

of Israel when they were baptized in (gv) or with "the cloud" 
and in (gv) or with "the sea,"* would be to keep entirely with- 
in the bounds of certainty. The nation of Israel then in- 
cluding at least twenty-five hundred thousand persons, were 
(1.) "Baptized in" (gv) or with "the cloud." To be bapti- 
zed in or with a cloud can be done only by the mist of which 
it is composed, resting in very small particles of water upon 
those who are thus baptized ; or by the mist becoming con- 
densed into larger drops and then falling upon them in rain. 
In either case the baptism must be by sprinkling. In one 
case the mist in very small particles of water falls upon the 
baptized ; in the other, the drops which fall upon them in 
their baptism, are larger. The latter is usually called rain ; 
the former mist. When " the cloud went from before" the 
Israelites and "stood behind them ;" it " poured out water."! 
This water poured out from the cloud as it passed to the 
rear of the Israelites, must, like the rain, have fallen in 
drops ; because this is the way in which water is invariably 
poured out of the clouds. There is not the least evidence 
that this water was poured out of the cloud in a way differ- 
ent from water failing from clouds at any other time. Here 
then, in (gv) or with this cloud, not less than twenty-five hun- 
dred thousand persons were baptized by sprinkling. (2.) 
These same Israelites were also all baptized in (gv) or with 
"the sea."* This their baptism was on "dry ground." It 
could not therefore possibly have been by immersion(a). To 
immerse or put persons entirely under water, while they are 
on "dry land,"| is a complete impossibility. To mention 
the thing is to expose its absolute absurdity. These Israel- 
ites could not have been baptized by pouring water upon them 
out of any vessel. There were no persons appointed to do this 
for them. Nor could this, in their situation, have been done 
for them by human beings. If the sea had closed in upon 
them as it did upon the Egyptians ; they could not then 
have passed through it on "dry ground."^ Indeed, if wa- 
ter had been poured upon each of them in any quantity which 
could properly be called pouring in baptism ; the ground 
would not have been dry in the midst of the sea where they 
were baptized. They could not therefore have been bapti- 

*1 Cot. 10: 2 in Greek. |Ex. 14: 19, Ps. 77: 17. (a)B. ii, P. i, Ch. 7: $ 4. JEx. 14 
21.29. $Ueb. 11:29. 



Ch. 2, § 6.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 213 

zed on " dry ground," in any mode'except by sprinkling. 
To have baptized them in any other way, would have wet 
the ground. When therefore they were baptized "on dry 
ground in the midst of the sea," the mode must have been by 
sprinkling. The spray or mist rising from the sea, must 
have descended upon them. To be baptized with spray or 
mist from the water of which the "wall" on their right hand 
and on their left* was composed, would not wet the ground. 
Scarcely a particle of it would be likely to touch the dry 
land on which they were walking through the sea. This 
must therefore have been the mode by which they were bap- 
tized ; for to have baptized them in any other would have 
wet the ground. Then they would not have " passed 
through," but only partly "through, the — sea — by dry land."f 
As they were baptized in (sv) or with the waters of "the 
sea," and as they went through it on dry land ; they must 
have been baptized in a mode that would not wet the ground. 
But as any other mode except sprinkling, would wet the 
ground ; therefore they must have been baptized in the sea 
with its waters by sprinkling. Examples by the million of 
baptism by sprinkling are here presented. 

6. Every example of baptism with water mentioned in the 
scriptures, proves that sprinkling is one mode of administer- 
ing that ordinance. Whenever water is said to be applied 
to persons in this ordinance; the word baptize which signi- 
fies sprinkle(a) is employed. It issaid of the three thousand 
on " the day of Pentecost ;" they " were baptized. "J It is 
also declared that Peter and Philip and Ananias and Paul 
and others " baptized persons.^ In all these cases, and in 
every other instance where any person is said to administer 
or receive this ordinance ; the Greek word (Bcwrn^w) for 
baptize is used. And, as this word signifies to sprinkle as 
one of its meanings, and as this is its only meaning definite- 
ly mentioned in the scriptures; so therefore in every example 
of baptism mentioned in Divine revelation where this word 
is used, (and it is used in them all,) sprinkling as one mode 
of baptism, is taught. Every example therefore of baptism 
with water mentioned in the whole book of God, shows that 

*Ex. 14:29. fHeb. 11: 29. (a) See B. ii, P. ii. Ch. 1. 6 1; P. i, Ch. 1, $ 2. 3. 

iActs 2: 1. 41. §Acts 2: 38 and 8: 12. 38 and 9; 17. 13 and 10; 47. 48 and 22: 12 16, lCor, 
I: 14. 16. 



914 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. I. 

sprinkling is one, if not the only, mode of administering this 
ordinance. 

7. The scriptural evidence which proves sprinkling to he 
a mode of baptism, is clear and full. That sprinkling is a 
mode of baptism, is taught, (1.) From the express language 
of scripture ; (2.) From several millions of scriptural exam- 
ples of this mode of baptism ; (3.) From the meanings of the 
word (Batfn^w) for baptize, one of which is to sprinkle ; 
(4.) From the fact that (Bcwrrw) the root from which the 
word for baptize is derived, often denotes to sprinkle ; (5.) 
From the meaning of the Hebrew word (^Qft) which is 
translated into Greek by the root of the word for baptize. 
This Hebrew word denotes to sprinkle, to wet a small part, 
&c. (6.) From the fact that what is signified by baptism is 
often said to be sprinkled ; (7.) From the fact that literal 
sprinkling is a proper sign of that which is spiritual ; (8.) 
From the fact that the uniform mode of performing scriptu- 
ral ceremonial washings, is by sprinkling ; (9.) From sprink- 
ling being a proper baptismal seal ; (10.) From the fact 
that sprinkling is the only mode which can become as uni- 
versal as the commission to administer baptism, requires the 
ordinance to be administered(a). These, and the other evi- 
dences which have been noticed from the word of God, show 
most conclusively that sprinkling is a scriptural mode of 
baptism. 

8. If there is but one mode of baptism, that must be by 
sprinkling. There is no definite evidence in the whole word 
of God to prove that immersion is a mode, and much less 
that it is the only mode of baptism(&). But that sprinkling 
is a mode of baptism, is taught by inspired men, in the most 
unequivocal language(c). If therefore there is but one 
mode of baptism ; sprinkling, as it is often definitely taught 
in the word of God, both by precept and example, must be 
that mode. 

The expression, " one baptism," says nothing of the mode. 
It does not say, one mode, or only one mode of baptism(rf). 
It does not even teach that there is only one kind of bap- 
tism. It does not say, or intimate this. There may be, 

(a)See on this section, Ch. 1, $ 1; $ 1-6; Ch. 1, $ 2-13; B. ii, P. ii. Ch. 1, $ 1. (b) 
See B. ii, P. 1, Ch. 5, $ 1-6, $ 7. (c) P. 1, Ch. 1, $1-7; and $ 1-7. (d)B. i, P> 



Ch. 1, § 1, 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 215 

notwithstanding this expression, one kind of baptism admi- 
nistered by applying water to the person receiving the ordi- 
nance, and another kind by the Holy Spirit operating on 
the souls of men ; and these may be entirely different from 
each other(a). If however there is only one mode by which 
the ordinance of christian baptism can be administered; that 
cannot be immersion. It must be by sprinkling ; as this is 
the only mode definitely taught in the revelation which God 
has been pleased to give to rnankind(Z>). 

PART SECOND. 

HUMAN AUTHORITY ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER L 

LEXICONS AND DICTIONARIES ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF 
BAPTISM. 

1. Human authority is no part of the Christian's rule of 
duty in religious matters. However numerous and learned 
the writers may be, who adopt a particular view, their au- 
thority is not the christian's rule of duty. This authority 
may be valuable in various respects. Men may direct the 
mind to the word of God. They may present, explain or 
enforce Divine truth. But their declarations, however plain 
and positive and learned and valuable, do not form any por- 
tion of the rule for man's religious duties. The word of 
God and that only is, and nothing else can be made, his rule 
of duty. Human authority on sprinkling as a mode of bap- 
tism, is here presented, not as any part of the christian's 
rule ; but it is mentioned merely to show that immersers are 
nearly as destitute of evidence from this source to sustain 
their exclusive claims, as they are from the scriptures of 
truth. 

2, Greek Lexicons teach that sprinkling is a mode of bap- 
tism. Their mode of doing this is two-fold. (1.) They in- 
form us that sprinkle is one meaning of the word (Ba?r<rw) 
from which that for baptize is derived(c). Hence the derivative 
(BotTrvi^w) which is til so a diminutive of the same word (Batf- 
tw) and therefore expresses less than its primitive, must sig- 
nify to sprinkle ; or rather to sprinkle with fewer or smaller 

(a)B. i, P. iv, Ch. 2, $ 2. (b)Ch. 1, $ 3. (c)B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $ L 



216 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. If. 

drops than (Barrw) its root. That the derivative cannot de- 
note more, and may express less, than the primitive word 
from which it is derived, will be manifest from a few exam- 
ples. Blackish is derived from black ; reddish from red ; 
wettish from wet ; foolish from fool, &c. From these and 
other examples; it is evident that a derivative word cannot 
denote more than that from which it is derived. That black- 
ish cannot denote more than black, reddish than red, whitish 
than white, &c, is too manifest to need illustration. (2.) 
Greek Lexicographers teach that the word (BaTi-r^w) for 
baptize itself, signifies to sprinkle(a). Greek Lexicons 
therefore teach that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. 

3. Hebrew Lexicons teach that sprinkling is a mode of 
baptism. They say that (3^^) the word which is transla- 
ted into Greek by (bcct™) the root for baptize, signifies to 
sprinkle, to wet a small part, &c(&). The authority of these 
Lexicons is, therefore, in favor of the position that sprink- 
ling is one, if not the only mode of baptism. 

4. English Dictionaries teach that sprinkling is one mode 
of baptism. They call baptism a sprinkling with water(c). 
This they would not do, if they did not intend to inform men 
that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. 

The Lexicographers in other ancient and modern langua- 
ges might be here quoted, were it necessary, to sustain the 
position that the Lexicons and Dictionaries teach that sprink- 
ling is a mode of baptism. In every language in which the 
word baptize is used, authority might be given to prove that 
sprinkling is one mode by which this ordinance may be ad- 
ministered. But to refer to more of this kind of authority, 
is deemed unnecessary. Lexicographers then, since they 
give sprinkle as one meaning of the word baptize, positive- 
ly teach that sprinkling is a mode of administering the holy 
ordinance of christian baptism. 

CHAPTER II. 

OTHER WRITERS ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM. 

1. The Apocryphal writers teach that sprinkling is a mo f le 
of baptism. By one of these, it is said ; "he that washeth" 

(a)B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 1. (b)See P. i, Ch. 1 $ 4. 5. (c)See Webster's Duodecimo 
Dictionary, New Haven edition 1806; B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, § 5. 






Ch. 2, § 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 217 

(BcttfTify^svcg) or baptizes " himself after — touching — a dead 
body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing" (a). 
When the mode, in which a person who had touched a dead 
body was to be ceremonially cleansed, is mentioned ; it is 
four times in one chapter said to be by sprinkling.* By 
comparing what is here said to have been done, with the 
mode of doing the same thing as mentioned in the word of 
God ; we have a manifest instance of a baptismal ceremoni- 
al washing performed by sprinkling. Moreover, it is af- 
firmed of Judith that she " washed' 7 (sfiarfri^ero) or baptized 
" herself in" (s<r<) at, on or upon "a fountain of water in"(sv) 
or by "the camp' ; (&). That this was a ceremonial washing 
appears from the circumstances of the case. She was a 
Jewess(c). She would therefore perform her ceremonial 
washings after the manner of that nation. That the Jewish 
ceremonial washings were performed by sprinkling, cannot 
but be evident to any one who will read the Old Testament(d). 
These washings are very frequently said to be by sprinkling. 
As therefore this washing of Judith was a, Jewish ceremonial 
washing, and as the word baptize which signifies to sprinkle 
is used ; so this her washing must have been by sprinkling. 

2. The Greek Fathers (d) teach that sprinkling is a mode 
of baptism. All the principal, and perhaps the whole, of 
these, use the word (Bocrfri^u) for baptize, which signifies 
sprinkle, when they mention this ordinance. But none of 
them uses (s^aifru or sjx/3a«7rr^6j) one of the words which fre- 
quently signify immerse, to express the ordinance of bap- 
tism. They therefore, by using this word for baptism, show 
that they held to sprinkling as a mode of administering this 
ordinance. Of these Fathers, a number may here be named, 
(1.) Polycarp was born about the year A. D. 67, was con- 
verted to the christian faith in A. D. 81, and was martyred 
about the year 160. He was a disciple of John the apostle. 
(2.) Ireneus, of Lyons, in France, was born in the year A. 
D. 97, and died about the year 203. He was a disciple of 
Polycarp. (3.) Justin Martyr wrote an apology for the 
christians about the year A. D. 139. He expressly states 
that " sprinkling — with — water was" practiced by the heath- 
fa.) Ecclus. 34: 25 in En*, called the Wisdom of Sirach 31: 30 in Greek. *See Num. 
19: 13. 18. 19. 20. f6,)Judith 12: 7. This camp contained at least 200,000 men, See 
Judith 7: 2. (c) Judith 8: 1 and 9: 1. 12. (d)P. i, Ch. 1,$ 7. C*; These were early 
christians who wrote ia Greek. 



218 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II. 

en " in imitation of — true baptism." The true baptism then 
must have been by sprinkling, or it could not have been im- 
itated by this mode of applying water. Sprinkling does not, 
in any particular, imitate immersion. If immersion had, in 
the days of Justin, been a mode or the only mode of baptism, 
practiced by christians, the heathen would have imitated that 
mode, as almost all heathenish persons now do, who pretend 
to baptize. Of himself this Justin says; "having been a 
disciple of the apostles, I became a teacher of the nations." 
Here then is a disciple of the apostles, during the lifetime of 
several of their disciples, within forty years from the death 
of John the Divine, affirming that sprinkling is the true 
mode of baptism, which the heathen imitated. He wrote 
this at least twenty years before Polycarp's death ; and six- 
ty years or more before the death of Ireneus. Neither of 
these, nor any other writer, denies this statement made by 
Justin. The assertion of this martyred disciple of the apos- 
tles, as to a mere matter of fact, certainly deserves credit. 
(4.) Ignatius was another disciple of John the apostle. He 
suffered martyrdom about the year A. D. 107, perhaps be- 
fore. Since Justin, a disciple of the apostles, taught that 
sprinkling was a mode of baptism ; all their other disciples, 
and therefore Ignatius, must have learned and taught the 
same truth. (5.) Origen, about the year 250, uses (bomt- 
ruf^og) baptism, which signifies sprinkling, to denote this or- 
dinance. But in his account of baptism he does not use a 
word which definitely signifies immersion. He saw his fa- 
ther beheaded for professing Christianity. His grand-father 
and great-grand-father were also christians. By these, he 
would receive instruction almost or quite from the apostles. 
This Origen affirms that by Elijah's order; the " wood" up- 
on the " altar" was baptized.* It is certain that the wood 
upon this altar was not taken up and then put entirely un- 
der water. (6.) Chrysostom, about the year 380, and ma- 
ny others, teach, by using a word (Bct<7r<n£w) which signifies 
to sprinkle, when they speak of baptism, that sprinkling is 
a mode by which that ordinance may be administered(aj. 

3. Latin Fa'hers teach that sprinkling is a mode of bap- 
tism. -Only four of these will here be mentioned. But all 

*1 Kings 18: 33. 34. (a) See Marsh, Wall, Mosheim, Milner, and other Eccleaiai- 
tical Historians. 



Ch. 2, § 4.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 219 

the early christians who wrote in Latin, use language sim- 
ilar to these, when they mention baptism. (1.) Tertullian 
wrote about the year 200(a). In speaking of this ordinance, 
he uses the word (baptismus or baptizo,) baptism or bap- 
tize, not any of the words in the Latin language which sig- 
nify immerse. (2.) Cyprian, about the j^ear 250, and, (3.) 
Fidus, about the same time, teach that sprinkling is baptism. 
Indeed, Cyprian, of whom it is said ; " he is a christian 
throughout" (b), expressly declares this fact (c). His lan- 
guage is too plain to be mistaken. (4.) Augustine wrote 
about the year 388 or 390, and for several years after. 
When he mentions baptism ; he, like other Latin writers, 
uses words which frequently signify to sprinkle. These 
and other Latin Fathers, therefore teach that sprinkling is a 
made of baptism(d). 

4. Pedobaptist commentators on the scriptures, teach that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism. Only a very few of the 
principal of these can be mentioned here. (1.) Henry (e)says 
of the eleven and their successors in the ministerial office ; 
they were to " admit" persons "into the church — by sprink- 
ling water upon them" in the ordinance of baptism. He 
then quotes the passages; I will "sprinkle clean water upon 
you," and he shall " sprinkle many nations,"* as prophetic 
descriptions of the mode by which baptism was to be admin- 
istered in New Testament times. By these passages, it is 
clearly intimated that the commission to baptize, requires 
those to whom it is entrusted by the Great Head of the church, 
to administer this ordinance in the same way or mode which 
he, by his prophets, had predicted that it should be adminis- 
tered. Henry therefore clearly teaches that sprinkling is a 
mode of baptism. (2.) Dr. Thomas Scott(/), declares plain- 
ly that immersion is " certainly not the only mode of bap- 
tism." He also as positively affirms that " baptism" may be 
administered "by — sprinkling." (3.) Dr. Adam Clark(g), 
says that " immersion" is not the only mode of baptism, and 
also, that those who are " sprinkled" in the name of the 

(a) He was the first Latin writer among christians whose works have reached onr 
day. (b) See Milner's Ch. Hist. p. 163, Edinburgh Edit. 1835. (c) See Epis. 70 to 
Magnus, (d) >'ee Marsh, Wall, Mosheim, Milne', and other Ecclesiastical Historians. 
(e) On Mat. 28: 16-20. *Ezek. 36: 25, Isa. 52: 15. (f) In his notes and criticisms on 
Mat. 3:5. 6, Mark 7: 3. 4, Acts 16: 29-34, Rom. 6: 3. 4, 1 Cor. 10: 2, Heb. 6: 1-3. (g) 
On Mat. 3: 6 and 28: 19, Notes at the end of Mark's Gospel, Acts IP: 5. 



220 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II. 

Trinity are "evangelically baptized." Again he declares; 
" baptism — administered by — sprinkling, signifies a full con- 
secration of the person to the service of that Being in whose 
name it is administered." He farther says, that " sprink- 
ling*' is a "legitimate" form " of baptism," and that "bap- 
tism is essentially performed by sprinkling." This language 
undoubtedly teaches that he believes sprinkling to be a mode 
of baptism. (4.) Guise in his Paraphrase, definitely teach- 
es that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. Moreover, Owen, 
Doddridge, Wall, Bradbury, Bostvvick, Towgood, Adding- 
ton, Williams, Edwards, Miller, Evans(a), Alexander, 
Fleury, Bogardus, Fonda, Milligan, Prime, and a number 
of others(6), all able men, have written in favor of sprink- 
ling being a mode of baptism. It is evident from the names 
here mentioned, that the principal Pedobaptist commentators 
and writers, maintain that sprinkling is one mode of bap- 
tism. When therefore it is affirmed, that these or other Pe- 
dobaptist writers, teach that immersion is the only mode of 
baptism, or that baptism cannot be administered by sprink- 
ling ; the name of the writer, and the page or chapter in his 
book, ought to be mentioned. These should be plainly point- 
ed out before the eyes of Pedobaptists. Then they would be 
furnished with the only suitable proof which can be given to 
show that any of these writers do now teach or ever have 
taught that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism. Till this 
is done, evidence in favor of such a position is wanting. Be- 
sides, when an immerser has occasionally manifested so 
much temerity as to mention the name of a Pedobaptist wri- 
ter as one who sustains his exclusive system, the assertion 
has always, upon examination, proved to be untrue. Instead 
of such Pedobaptist writers teaching that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism, they teach expressly that sprinkling 
is a legitimate mode of administering that ordinance. When 
therefore it is asserted that Pedobaptist writers teach that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism ; men who yield their 
assent to that and to that only for the support of which they 
have good evidence, must beg leave to decline giving impli- 
cit confidence to these and similar statements, till at least one 
such writer is discovered by them. 

The fact that several of the writers mentioned in this eee- 

(a) See Back, Art. Baptism, (b) See Ch. 3, $ 1. 2. 



Ch. 2, <§. 5.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 221 

tion, admit that immersion, as well as sprinkling, is a mode 
of baptism, does not in the least degree, sustain the exclu- 
sive claims of immersers. The position of the exclusives is, 
not that immersion is one mode of baptism, but that it is the 
only mode. That immersion is a mode of baptism, is one 
thing ; and that it is the only mode, is a position essentially 
different. The latter is the ground taken by the exclusive 
immersers. To change their position, as if their only inten- 
tion was to teach that immersion is one mode of baptism, 
when they really maintain that it is the only mode, proves 
their want of candor ; not that immersion is the only mode 
of baptism. To change their ground thus, also shows that 
they feel how incapable they are of sustaining their exclu- 
sive claims by evidence brought to bear on the position they 
profess to maintain. 

5. Ancient monumental pictures and engravings prove that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism. About fifty of these have 
been preserved. They indicate the mode of baptism prac- 
ticed from about the year 300, till about the year A. D. 1100. 
By no one of these is immersion taught(a). In each of them, 
the water is represented as being applied to the person, not 
the person to the water. In all of them the water is uni- 
formly represented as being sprinkled or poured upon the 
head of the person baptized. The recipient of the ordinance 
is sometimes represented as standing in the water and some- 
times as standing out of it on the floor or on the ground. In 
every instance the administrator is represented as being en- 
tirely out of the water, while he is administering the ordi- 
nance. It is manifest therefore, that being in the water, 
was no part of the ordinance of baptism ; for if it was, then 
baptism could not have been administered while the recipi- 
ent was entirely out of it ; as, according to these evidences, 
it often was. Of these monumental representations, at least 
five exhibit the baptism of Christ, in four of these, John is 
represented as sprinkling water on the head of our Saviour; 
and in one, as pouring it on him out of a small shell(Z>). It 

(a) See P. ii, P. ii, Ch. 4, § 2. (b) See the door of the church at Pisa; the church 
on the via Ostiensis at Pome;" the church at Deneventa in Italy; the Baptistry at Ra- 
venna in Italy; (this represents the baptism of Christ by sprinkling, and is dated A. D. 
434;) the church in Cosmedine at Ravenna, (it represents the baptism of Christ and ii 
dated in 401;) a sculptural monument at Chigia near Naples, in Italy; one at Rome) 
the church of Lawrence, without the walla of Rome; the Baptistry of Tontianuj near 
Rome; Arringhius, Eusebius, &c. 



222 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II. 

is manifest therefore that by these ancient monumental pic- 
tures and engravings, sprinkling, as a mode of baptism, is 

taught. 

CHAPTER III. 

DENOMINATIONS ON SPRINKLING AS A MODE OP BAPTISM. 

1. Christians in general maintain that sprinkling is a 
mode of baptism. They teach this both by precept and exam- 
ple. Of the one hundred and seventy-five millions of pro- 
fessing christians in the world(a), more than one hundred 
and seventy millions admit that sprinkling is a mode of bap- 
tism ; and more than one hundred and forty millions prac- 
tice that mode. Of these millions of professing christians, 
at least seventy-five millions are Romanists ; not less than 
thirty millions are connected with the Greek church ; and 
about sixty-five millions are professedly Protestant. The 
Romanists all sprinkle in what they call baptism ; the Greek 
church do not exclude sprinkling from being one mode of 
baptism, though they usually immerse persons and call that 
baptism(S). They also sometimes baptize by sprinkling(c). 
But the intelligent Protestant will not admit that the author- 
ity of these, is of much consequence ; as they do not even 
profess to take the unadulterated word of God for their only 
rule in all religious duties. But the authority of sixty-five 
millions of professed Protestants may be noticed. Of these 
less than one million wholly reject baptism with water. 
About the same number maintain that immersion is the only 
mode of baptism. Here then are more than sixty millions 
of Protestants who teach, both by precept and example, that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism. From the facts here sta- 
ted, it is certainly true that professing christians in general, 
maintain that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. 

% Many large denominations teach that this is one mode of 
administering the ordinance of baptism. A few of these may 
here be named. That sprinkling is a mode of baptism, was 
taught by the Waldenses, Albigenses, &c, of the early and 
middle ages. It is also held, (1.) By the church of Scot- 
land ; (2.) By the Free Assembly of Scotland ; (3.) By the 



(a) In this estimate all ate included, who are not Pagans, 
Jews, (b) B. ii, P. ii, Cb. 3, § 1. 2. (c) Deylingius, Salt, E 



. Mahometans or modern 
Eusebiua. 



Ch- 3, § 2.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 223 

Associate, the Associate Reformed, the Reformed Presbyte- 
rian, the Dutch Reformed, the German Reformed, and by 
the Relief Presbyterian churches; (4.) By the Episcopal 
church in Europe and in America; (5.) By the Presbyteri- 
an church, (Old and New School ;) (6.) By the Cumber- 
land Presbyterians ; (7.) By the Methodists, (of different 
kinds ;) (8.) By the Congregationalists and Independents ; 
(9.) By the Irish Presbyterians ; (10.) By the Gallican 
church ; (11.) By the Lutherans in Europe and in Ameri- 
ca; fl2.) By the Reformed church of Holland, Germany, 
France, &c. These all maintain that sprinkling is a mode 
of baptism. Even the Sabian Disciples of John the Baptist, 
as they call themselves, and the Menonite Baptists in Hol- 
land, admit that sprinkling is one mode of baptism (a). 
Most of these denominations are large, intelligent, respecta- 
ble and pious. Some of them adhere very strenuously to the 
position that nothing is, or can be made by man, any part 
of Christianity, either in doctrine or practice, which is not 
clearly taught in the word of God, Even immersers them- 
selves, will not dispute the piety and learning of the minis- 
try and laity of at least one half of these denominations. 
The authority then of more than 30 millions of persons, em- 
bracing many of acknowledged and deep-toned,scriptural pie- 
ty, accurate and extensive learning, conscientious adherence 
to the word ofGod as their only rule in all religious duties, and 
a habitual willingness to be directed by " the law" and " the 
testimony, 7 '* must be conclusive, so far as human authority 
can decide this matter. 

Moreover, it is a remarkable fact, worthy of a passing 
notice here, that no class of persons who maintain that im- 
mersion is the only mode of baptism(J), do now or ever did 
require their public religious teachers to be thoroughly edu- 
cated men. Besides, the exclusives are not at all scrupu- 
lous in their practical adherance to the word of God in their 
religious exercises. As examples of their deviations from 
the scriptures in what they call religion ; several instances 
may be mentioned. (1.) They often use anxious seats. (2.) 
They frequently wear long beards. (3.) Many of them, for 
years, maintained the notion that the day of judgement was 

(a) See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 3, $ 2, Wolf, Ward's Letters, See also Dr. S. Mil- 
ler, J. P. Perrin, Morland, &c. *Isa.8: 20. (b) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 6, $ 6, par. 3. 



224 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, p. II. 

to take place in the year 1843, or before April 1st, 1844. 
(4.) They sometimes even violate the commands of God un- 
der the name of religion. They not unfrequently violate 
that command ; " let your women keep silence in the church- 
es,''* and that which requires men to "remember the Sab- 
bath day" and "keep it holy;" and also that which says, 
"thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."! 
Since they can mistake the violation of some of the positive 
commands of God for religious service ; and since they can 
so readily violate others ; their authority in matters of reli- 
gion, even if they were equally numerous, might be ques- 
tioned with much greater propriety than that of those millions 
who take the word of God, both in principal and in practice, 
for their only rule in all religious duties. 

3. Councils, Synods and Assemblies, hold to sprinkling as 
a mode of baptism. Only a very small portion of the prin- 
cipal of these can be mentioned here. (1.) The council at 
Attica in Africa, may be mentioned. This was composed of 
sixty-six pastors or bishops. Cyprian was its president. It 
was literally a council of martyrs. It was held in A. D. 253. 
(2.) The council of Eliberis was convened in the year 305. 
(3.) The second council of Carthage met in A. D. 397; 
another in the same place, in 400; another in 401 ; an- 
other in Rome in 402. (4.) The fifth council of Carthage 
assembled in the year 416. (5.) The Synod of Dort held its 
sessions in the years 1618 and 1619. (6.) The Westminster 
Assembly(a) held its sessions from the year 1642 till 1648 (Z>). 
These, together with the Synod of Cambridge Massachusetts 
which met in 1649, and a multitude of others, all teach in 
some form of words, that sprinkling is a mode of baptism(c). 
Such an amount of human authority, presents itself in favor 
of sprinkling being a mode of baptism, that it almost over- 
whelms the mind. No human testimony can possibly be 
more convincing than what christians present on this subject. 

All these believe and habitually teach that sprinkling is a 

♦ICor. 14.34. tEx.20: 8.16. (a) Pee the Minutes of these Councils, Synods and 
Assemblies, (b) This Assembly met at Westminster in London, July, 1C42. It held 
1163 sessions. It continued its meeting by successive adjournments till, after having 
eat five years seven months and twenty-two days, it was dissolved early in the year 
1648. It was composed of 151 members. Of these 12 1 were ministers, eminent for 
piety and learning This Assembly was unanimously in favor of sprinkling being a 
mode of baptism. They also decided by a majority of one that immersion was bap- 
tism, (c) See Ecclesiastical Histories generally; also, Platform, Ch. 12, § 7. 



Ch. 3, § 3.] SPRINKLING SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 225 

mode of baptism. They uniformly reverence the authority 
of God. They manifest habitual love to him and to his 
cause. They read the scriptures with prayerful attention, 
to ascertain what the will of the Lord is. They love righ- 
teousness. They take pleasure in obeying the Divine com- 
mands. With all this piety, this devotion to the service of 
God, this earnest anxiety to learn what he teaches in his 
word ; they believe and habitually affirm that sprinkling is 
a mode of baptism. If this their uniform assertion is not 
true, then they are all guilty of habitual lying. They all 
assert habitually that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. If it 
is not so ; then, every time they make the assertion, they 
are guilty of uttering a solemn falsehood. They must there- 
fore be habitual liars, or sprinkling must be what they con- 
stantly affirm it to be, a mode of baptism. Habitual liars 
are not christians, — are not even moral men. Millions and 
tens of millions of persons who, to all appearance, are true, 
devoted followers of the Lamb, now declare, and hundreds 
of millions, not a few of whom have suffered martyrdom 
for their religion, have heretofore, while they lived on earth, 
habitually declared sprinkling to be a mode of baptism 
taught in the word of God. If this their uniform declara- 
tion is not true ; then all these professing christians, — these 
martyred followers of the blessed Saviour, are living, or 
have lived and died, with a "lie in ? ' their ''right hand." 
And we know that "all liars shall have their part in the 
lake which burnetii with fire and brimstone. 7 '* Such a charge 
brought against the great body of professing christians, ought 
to be sustained by at least one explicit passage of scripture. 
To say that the knowledge of these persons is or was defective 
on this subject is but a sorry apology for them. Men of veraci- 
ty take care to know that what they habitually affirm is true. 
They do not regularly affirm that for truth of which they 
have no knowledge. When men uniformly declare that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism ; they either tell the truth, 
or this their declaration is not true. If it is false, then those 
who constantly make it, are habitually uttering a most sol- 
emn falsehood. But those who are guilty of doing this, are 
habitual liars. Who, on the mere unsupported assertion of 

*Rev. 21: S. 

15 



226 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. Ill, P. If. 

a few immersers can believe that all these millions of profes- 
sing christians are, or were, while they lived, habitual liars'? 
Those who cannot do this, must believe that sprinkling is a 
mode of baptism. 

The charge of being thus guilty of "lying" and of be- 
ing "monomaniacs" or deranged in relation to the subject 
of baptism, is by immersers, brought, in plain, unvarnished 
language, against all who baptize infants by sprinkling. 
These and many other similar expressions, are used in rela- 
tion to them(a). If these charges are true, then all who 
baptize infants by sprinkling, must be most odiously wicked 
persons. To say that a lying rebel against the king of Zion, 
is a christian, is a gross perversion of language. Before 
men of intelligence and candor can believe such charges to 
be true, they must have more evidence to sustain them than 
the mere assertion of those who, without a blush, can alter 
the word of God to make it suit their own system. 

A GENERAL VIEW 

OF SPRINKLING AS A MODE OF BAPTISM, PRESENTED IN A DI- 
ALOGUE BETWEEN A BAPTIZER AND AN IMMERSER. 

Immerser. Mr. Baptizer, do you believe that immersion 
is the only mode of baptism 1 

Baptizer. I do not. 

I. Why do you not believe that immersion is the only 
mode of Baptism % 

B. Because, in the word of God, there is no precept, no 
example, no evidence of any kind to prove that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism. 

I. Do you believe that immersion is one mode of baptism ? 

B. I cannot say that 1 do. That which has no scriptural 
evidence to sustain its claims to be a mode of baptism ; that 
which is not even mentioned in the whole of Divine revela- 
tion as a mode of baptism, can scarcely be called a christian 
ordinance, by those who take the word of God and that only, 
for their rule of duty. That there is no evidence in scrip- 
ture to sustain the claims of immersion(Z>) is perfectly cer- 
tain. No one can find any positive evidence in the scrip- 
tures to prove immersion to be a mode of baptism ; for this 

(a) See Bliss on baptism, p. 40. 66. 201. (b) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 5, § 1-L 



REVIEW OF SCRIPTURAL, BAPTISM. 227 

plain reason ; no such evidence is recorded in God's word(a). 

I. Do you believe that baptism with water is an ordinance 
of Divine appointment to be observed in the New Testament 
church % 

B. I do ; for there is positive scriptural evidence to prove 
that baptism with water is to be observed in the christian 
church till the end of time(Z>). 

I. In what mode of baptism do you believe ? 

B. I believe that sprinkling is a scriptural mode of admin- 
istering the ordinance of christian baptism. 

I. Have you any evidence for this your belief? 

B. 1 have much ;. and it is as positive as language can 
make it. 

I. Do the scriptures in any passage, positively teach that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism ? 

B. They do, in many passages and in different forms of 
expression(c). 
; I. Does the word baptize ever denote sprinkle ? 

B. It does frequently(d). 

I. Does God in the scriptures command persons to be 
sprinkled as a mode of baptism ? 

B. He does, in every passage where baptism with water 
is commanded(e). 

I. Are there any scriptural examples of sprinkling as a 
mode of baptism ? 

B. There are, hudreds, thousands, millions of such exam^ 
ples(/). 

I. Do wise and good men admit that sprinkling is a mode 
of baptism ? 

B. Yes; millions of them do. Indeed, almost the whole 
of the professedly christian world maintain that sprinkling 
is a mode of baptism (g). 

I. Do not a very few wise and good men deny that sprink- 
ling, in the name of the Trinity, is a mode of baptism 1 

B. Some few that are so called, deny this* But if they 
were men of knowledge on this subject, they could not be- 
lieve that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; and if 
they were really good men, they would not maintain what 

(a) See B. ii, P. i, Ch. 5, §1-4. (b) See B. i, P. 1, Ch. 2, § 2-4. (c) P. 1, Ch. 1. 
§ 1-13. (d) P. 1, Ch. 1, § 2. 4. (e) P. 1, Ch. 1, § 12. (f) P. 1, Ch. 2, $ 1-5. (g) Ck. 
U Ch. 2, § 1-5. Ch. 3, § 1-3. 



228 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. Ill, P. II. 

they did not believe. It may therefore be doubted, with 
much propriety, whether any truly good man, thoroughly 
acquainted with this subject, ever really believed the notion 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. But if wise 
and good men did believe it, their belief would not prove it 
to be true. If a wise and good man believes a falsehood, his 
belief will not change the falsehood into truth. 

I. Is not the word baptize of Greek origin 1 

B. It is. This word was transferred from the Greek into 
English at a very early period in the history of our lan- 
guage. 

I. Is it right to transfer words from one language into an- 
other ? 

B. It certainly is. In doing so, there can be no manner 
of impropriety. 

I. If the word baptize may without sin, be transferred 
from Greek into English ; why may not every word in that 
language be transferred into ours ? Now I've cornered you. 

B. if there is no sin in transferring the low Latin word 
immerse from that language into English, why may we not 
transfer all low words from that language into ours 1 

I. Really, I do not know. I never thought of that be- 
fore. 

B. Then I will tell you. There would, in reality, be no 
sin in transferring all the words in any one language into 
any other. Words which now compose parts of the English 
language have been transferred from more than twenty oth- 
ers. The Saxon is generally, and with propriety, consider- 
ed the original of the English language. The Saxon is a 
dialect of the Old Teutonic. From this last originated the 
present German and other Gothic languages. When the 
Saxons invaded Britain, their language embraced compara- 
tively few words. Having become masters of the English 
Island they used their own language in all governmental trans- 
actions. This rude and uncultivated people soon intermin- 
gled with the ancient Britains who were equally uncultiva- 
ted. As they extended their knowledge by science and com- 
merce, they adopted from other languages, such words as 
they needed to express to each other their newly-acquired 
thoughts. In this way they enriched the English language 



REVIEW OP SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM. 229 

with the addition of many foreign words. They had no term 
originally in their language, which would express all that 
(Batfri^w) the word for baptize signifies. They therefore 
transferred or adopted that word into their own language. 
Did they do wrong in doing this ? 

I. I think not. But do you really believe that sprinkling 
is the only mode of baptism % 

B. I cannot say that I do. It is however the only mode 
expressly taught in the word of God ; and if there is but one 
mode of baptism, that must certainly be by sprinkling(a). 

I. Why, you tear immersion up by the roots ; and I won't 
hear another word from you on the subject. 

B. Do not be displeased with me. I am not to blame, be- 
cause God in his word, has not taught that immersion is the 
only mode of baptism. Nor is it my fault that men will not 
read and believe what the scriptures declare in relation to 
this subject. God's word, plainly and positively and repeat- 
edly, teaches that sprinkling is a mode of baptism. I am 
not to blame for this ; am I ? 

I. I won't hear any more from you on this subject. You 
make it so plain, every person will soon believe in sprink- 
ling ; and then, O, what will become of my dear, favorite 
scheme of immersion ! ! This too, you accomplish, without 
altering Divine revelation to make it suit your views of bap- 
tism ; while I had to alter the Bible to obtain some faint 
shadow of evidence to prove that immersion is even one 
mode of baptism. O, my immersion, you're overthrowing 
that ! ! How can I live, if my own dear immersion is expo- 
sed in all its naked deformity ! \ This you are doing. For 
this you are to blame. I'll hear no more of this. I'll leave 
you. 

B. Farewell, Mr. Immerser. I pray the Lord to give you 
light to perceive and grace to receive God's truth in love. 

I. I tell you I won't hear you any longer. 

B. He's gone. How unwilling he is to receive the truth 
on this subject. Perhaps God has given him up to believe 
a lie, because he was willing to be led blindfolded into this 
maze of error. When the truth flashes on his intellect, he 
appears to hate it. May the Lord give him grace. May he 
teach him, and every other immerser, to read and believe 

(a)Y. i,Ch.2.S& 



230 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

and love his own holy word; and then they will all soon for- 
sake their exclusive system, unsupported as it is, by the 
scriptures of truth. 

BOOK FOURTH. 

THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

PART FIRST. 

BAPTISM INCLUDED IN CHURCH ORGANIZATION. 

CHAPTER I. 

THE CHURCH OF GOD DEFINED. 

1. The church is a society. This appears from the fact 
, that it is composed of persons united together for certain 

purposes. The word church is, in the scriptures, used in a 
variety of senses. In each of them it denotes a society of 
persons or its officers. The term " churches" in the plural 
number, is often found in the word of God.* It then de- 
notes different branches of this society. The word church is 
sometimes used to signify the whole society! and sometimes 
only a part of it. J Moreover, its officers are occasionally 
expressed by the word church.§ 

2. The church is a religious society. The very design of 
this society is to unite for religious purposes. In every pas- 
sage of scripture where the church of Christ, in any of its 
branches, is mentioned; this fact is either expressed or taken 
for granted(a). The original word (sxxX^tfia) for church fre- 
quently signifies any assembly of people met for any purpose. 1 1 
But the church of Christ always denotes a religious society. 

3. The church is a society in covenant with God. Each 
member of this society is bound in covenant to believe all 
that God teaches in his word, and to obey all his require- 
ments. This is the very nature of the covenant into which 
every person enters who unites with any branch of this so- 
ciety. By the very act of joining a church, a person rati- 
fies this covenant relation. 

4.* This covenant has a seal or seals and parties. A seal 
is, in fact, an essential part of a covenant. It is that which 
confirms its promise to the party to whom it is made. No 

*See Acts 9: 31 and 15: 41 and 16: 5, Rom. 16: 16,1 Cor. 7: 17 and 11: 16 and 14: 33. 
34, Gal. 1: 2, Rev. 1: 4. 11. 20 and 2: 7. 11. 17. 23. 29 and 3: 6. 13. 22 and 22: 16. |See 
Acts 2: 47 and 15: 22, Eph. 1: 22, &c. JSee Acts 11: 26, 1 Cor. 16. 19, &c. §See Mat. 
18: 17, &c. (a) References in § 1. ||See Acts 19: 39. 41 in Eng. and 39. 40 in Greek. 



Ch. 2, § 1-4.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 231 

covenant can therefore be complete without a seal or seals. 
Parties are also essential to the very existence of a covenant. 
It is a solemn, sealed agreement, made between the parties. 
God and the church, in its members or in its head, are the 
parties in the covenant which constitutes this society.* The 
promise of the covenant is sealed and sure to all who, by 
themselves or by their substitute, perform its stipulations.! 

CHAPTER II. 

THE INVISIBLE CHURCH INCLUDES SPIRITUAL BAPTISM. 

1. Uninspired men cannot certainly know luho are the mem- 
bers of this church. On this account it is frequently, and 
not improperly, called the invisible church. The com- 
mencement of true grace in the soul is often imperceptible 
to human beings. J It is with propriety therefore that this 
church is called invisible. Besides, some of «its members 
have passed into the unseen world ; and others are not yet 
born. These of course are not visible to man on earth. 

2. All its members are included in the covenant of grace. 
This is " the church — which 77 Christ " hath purchased with 
his own blood. 77 § Its members compose " God 7 s elect. 77 || 
They all have been, or will be truly regenerated by the Spi- 
rit of God,fi and eventually taken to eternal rest. This is 
"the church 77 over which Christ is the spiritual "head. 77 ** 
All its members are or certainly will be saved through the 
merits and intercession of Jesus Christ its glorious Redeem- 
er.H 

3. Tlie parties in this covenant are God the Father and 
Christ as the representative and substitute of his people. 
Christ is often mentioned as "head 77 of this " church, 77 and 
as a substitute for his people, for his " sheep. 77 ** The Lord 
Jesus Christ is therefore the head or representative, and the 
substitute of his people. This covenant was made between 
the Father and the Son as the head of his people.! f 

4. Adults and infants are interested in this covenant. A 
part of these entered heaven before the death of Christ ; a 

*See Gen. 17: 11, 1 Chron. 16: 15, Ps. 50: 5 and S9: 3. 28. 34, Isa. 56: 4, Acts 3: 25, 
Gal. 3: 17, &e. fSee Rom. 4: 11. 12. JSee Luke 17: 20. 21. <\Acts20: 28. ||Isa. 65: 
9. 22, Mat, 24: 22. 24. 31, Rom. 8: 33 and 9: 11 and 11: 5. ?, Col. 3: 12, 2 Tim. 2: 10, 
IThess. 1: 4, &c. ITSee John 6: 37, 39. 45. 65 and 10: 16. 27-29, Rom. S: 28-39, Heb. 
12: 23, 1 Pet. 1: 5. **Eph. 1: 22, See also Eph. 4: 15 and 5: 23, Isa. 53: 4. 5. 6. 8. 11. 12, 
John 10: U. 15. 26-29. ftPs. 89: 3. 15-19. 27. 28. 34. 37, Zach. 6: 13. 



232 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

portion have left this world since ; some live on earth at 
present ; and some are not yet born. That both infants and 
adults are interested in this covenant, appears from the ex- 
press language of scripture. God says of those in this cov- 
enant ; " I will give them one heart that they may fear me 
forever, for the good of them and of their children after 
them. 7 '* Here parents and " their children" are both ex- 
pressly mentioned as having an interest in this covenant. Its 
promise is made alike to both. It is " for the good of them" 
and " of their children." That some infants are saved, few 
persons will deny. But if any ever were or ever will be 
saved, then infants are included in this covenant. Such in- 
fants as are saved, must belong to Christ as a part of his peo- 
ple ; as a portion of his flock. Several infants are mention- 
ed in the scriptures, as being interested in the grace of this 
covenant. Among these, may be noticed the child of David, 
the child of Jereboam, together with Jeremiah and John the 
Baptistt(^). It is therefore undeniably certain, that both 
adults and infants are interested in the covenant of grace ; 
for it is certain that some of both classes have been saved. 

5. The covenant of grace has a seal. This is essential to 
it as a covenant. This " seal" is often mentioned in the 
word of God. It is called the "circumcision — of the heart," 
spiritual baptism, a being "born again," — "born of the 
Spirit," — "born of God, J and the like. Those therefore 
who are in this covenant, either have been or will be "seal- 
ed" with " the Holy Spirit of God."§ 

6. This invisible church is one. It is made up of all true 
believers in every age and country. (1.) These are called 
•' one." (2.) They have one " head." (3.) They have one 
regenerating Spirit by which they " are sealed." (4.) They 
have " one God and Father." (5.) They have one rule to 
which to conform in all their religious principles and prac- 
tices. This is the Spirit speaking in the scriptures. (6.) 
They, together, constitute the " one body" of Christ. (7.) 
They are one "building." (8.) They have one " founda- 
tion." || From these evidences, it is clear that the true, 

*Jer.32: 39. tSee 2 Sam. 12: 22.23, 1 Kings 14: 1. 3. 12. 13, Jer. 1: 5, Luke 1: 1.5, 
fa; See P. ii, Ch. 4, § 3. JSee 2 Tim. 2: 19, Rom. 2: 28. 29, Deut. 10: 16 and 30: 6, 
Jer. 4: 4, Col. 2: 11, Eph. 4: 30, Mat. 3: 11,' John 1: 12. 13 and 3: 3. 5. 6. 7. $Eph. 4: 30, 
II John 17: 21-24, Gal. 3: 28, 1 Cor. 10: 17, Eph. 1: 22. 23 and 4: 4-6. 15. 16, See Isa. 8: 20, 
Fs. 19: 7, 1 Cor. 3: 9, Isa. 28: 16, Eph. 2: 20. 



Ch. 3, § 1 } 2.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 233 

spiritual and holy church of Christ is one ; and that each 
member of it is included in the covenant of grace. It is also 
manifest that they are all true christians, or are yet to be 
made such by the new-creating power of the Holy Spirit.* 
The most of these are, have been or will be, in visible cov- 
enant relation with God, but not all. This our Saviour 
teaches in his address to the thief on the cross. He says to 
him ; " To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise, "f That 
this malefactor was saved is certain ; but there is no evi- 
dence that he was ever in visible covenant relation with God. 



CHAPTER III. 

BAPTISM WITH WATER INCLUDED IN VISIBLE CHURCH ORGAN- 
IZATION. 

1. God organized a visible church. This is certain, from 
the fact that there is a visible church on earth. If God had 
not organized a church, then there could not possibly have 
been any organized society which could at any time have 
unitedly rendered him acceptable service. To act without 
God's authority, is not serving him. It is rebellion against 
his commands which require mankind to " obey his voice,"! 
and to go "to the law and to the testimony" for directions^ 
in all religious duties. That there is on earth a church, or 
a society of persons in visible covenant relation with God, 
is positive proof that it was organized by him ; or that it 
was, in some way and at some period of time, received into 
covenant by him. 

2. God organized the visible church in the days of Abram. 
God had his people on earth before this date. They served 
him in a visible form. This was by offering sacrifices ac- 
cording to his appointment.|| Before this, God had not en- 
tered into a special covenant with his professed servants. 
But " when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord 
appeared to' 7 him, u and said ;" — " I will make my covenant 
between me and thee ;" — " I will establish my covenant be- 
tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee;" — "I will 
multiply thee;" — "Thou shalt be a father of many na- 

*See Eph. 2: 10. tLuke 23: 43. JDeut. 13: 4, Josh. 24: 24, 1 Sam. 12: 14, Jer. 7: 23, 
Acts 5: 29, Rom. 6: 16, 2 Thess. 1: 8, Heb. 5: 9, &c. §Isa. 8: 20. [|See Ps. 50: 5, Heb. 
11: 4. 



234 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

tions ;" — " I will give unto thee and to thy seed — all the 
land of Canaan ; and I will be their God.* (a). Here is 
the covenant definitely mentioned. Its promise is also plain- 
ly stated. Moreover, God pointed out to Abram what, in 
this covenant, was to be required of him and of his seed. 
This is done in positive language. He says to him ; "Walk 
before me and be thou perfect ;" — " Thou shalt keep my 
covenant — thou and thy seed ;" — "My covenant shall be in 
your flesh. "f To this Abram agreed for himself and for his 
seed. This is evident from the account of this whole trans- 
action. Moreover, it was necessary, in order to complete 
the covenant, that he should accept its stipulations, or agree 
to the demands which it proposed. These were all evident- 
ly and perfectly just. With them he could not therefore 
with propriety refuse to comply. The " seal" or " token" 
of this covenant, is expressly named. This was circumci- 
sion. " Every man-child among you shall be circumci- 
sed ;" — " Ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin. "i 
In this covenant one party is God ; adults and infants com- 
pose the other. Abram, an adult, " ninety years old and 
nine," Ishmael, a lad of " thirteen," and Isaac, an infant, 
" eight days old," were all circumcised to comply with the 
stipulations of this covenant. § This was to them the "to- 
ken" — "sign" or "seal" of this "covenant."|| We have here 
then presented, (1.) The condescension of God. He pro- 
poses to enter into covenant with a man and his seed, both 
literal and spiritual.il (2.) The covenant which is proposed 
on the part of God, is accepted on the part of Abram. (3.) 
The covenant requirements are mentioned. (4.) The prom- 
ise of the covenant is definitely made. This is two-fold. It 
proposes temporal blessing to all who sustain this covenant 
relation. It also includes spiritual blessings for all who, by 
the grace of their substitute, perfectly comply with its stipu- 
lations. All spiritual blessings are included in that part of 
the promise expressed in this language ; "I will be a God 

*Gen. 17: 1.2. 4.7. 6, (aj'Sot the most distant hint is contained in the whole word 
of God of a church being organized in the days of John the Baptist. No covenant is 
mentioned either directly or indirectly: no seal of a covenant: no transferable commis- 
sion was given him (See B. i, P. iii, Ch. 1, § 6.) He was sent to baptize and make the 
Lord Jesus Christ manifest to Israel, not to organize a church. To do this was no part 
of the duty which his commission as forerunner of Christ required himlo perform. This 
will be manifest to any one who will take the trouble to read what John was required 
to do. fGen. 17: 1. 9. 13. }Gen. 17: 10. 11. §Gen. 17: 24. 25 and 21: 1. ||Gcn. 17: 11, 
Rom. 4: 11. USee Gal. 3: 7-9. 14. 29. 



Ch. 3, § 3.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 235 

unto thee and to thy seed." (5.) There is a visible seal 
mentioned as belonging to this covenant. This is one of its 
necessary parts. Without this, the external covenant rela- 
tion between God and his visible people, would have been 
incomplete. (6.) The parties in this covenant are mention- 
ed. A covenant always supposes parties. Without these 
it could not therefore have existed. Here then are present- 
ed all the parts complete of a visible church organization. 
No one part is wanting. None is defective. The right to 
organize this church, being from God, was perfect. In ev- 
ery part of its organization, Divine wisdom is clearly exhi- 
bited. It is perfectly manifest therefore that in the days of 
Abram, the visible church of God was organized. 

3. This visible church organization, in all its parts, is 
permanent. This appears from several considerations. (1.) 
There is nothing in the nature of the parties, or in the cov- 
enant, or in the design which God had in forming a visible 
church on earth, or in his purposes of mercy towards men, 
which, in the nature of things, would disorganize this church. 
(2.) There could be no necessity, so far as God or man 
might be interested in the church, for dissolving this organ- 
ization, and leaving the world again to uncovenanted mer- 
cies. (3.) If God should disorganize this church in the for- 
mation of which his wisdom was displayed, no greater or 
different wisdom would be exhibited in another. If this there- 
fore should be disorganized, as the same wisdom and the 
same power would be manifested in organizing another; the 
last would be precisely like the first in every thing essential 
to church organization. It cannot be supposed therefore 
that a Being of perfect wisdom, would disorganize a church 
of his own formation, merely for the purpose of organizing 
it again. (4.) There is positive evidence that this church is 
permanent in its duration. The covenant which is essential to 
its existence, is permanent. It is expressly and repeatedly call- 
ed " an everlasting covenant. 7 '* As there is nothing in the 
covenant, or in the parties, or in the nature of things, to limit 
its duration; men have no right to do so. This covenant there- 
fore will continue while the earth remains, in all its parts 
which belong to the church in time, and through eternity in all 

*Gen. 17: 7. 13. 19, Ps. 105: 10, 



236 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

its parts which relate specially to the world of spirits. Always 
after this covenant was made in the days of Abram, those to 
whom its seal was applied, are represented as being the pro- 
fessed people of God. They are called the " people of God;" 
"the congregation of the Lord ;" — the "Israel" of God ; — 
his " chosen" people ; — " a holy people ;" — a people in 
" covenant ;" — a " peculiar people,"* &c. This language 
clearly teaches that those interested in the Abrahamic cove- 
nant, composed the visible church of God, from and after its 
organization. They are expressly denominated " the church 
in the wilderness,"! through which the Israelites passed in 
going from Egypt to Canaan. The ceremonial " law which 
was" given more than " four hundred years after" this cov- 
enant was made, did not, could not, disannul it, so as to ren- 
der its promise ineffectual. J The positive language of scrip- 
ture therefore, together with all the circumstances of the 
case, shows clearly that the church organized in the days of 
Abram, is perpetual in its duration. 

4. The covenant into which God entered with Abram and 
his seed, teas not disannulled, but confirmed by our Saviour. 
This is positively declared by inspired men. Of Christ's 
personal appearance on earth, the prophet says; "he shall 
confirm the covenant with many," not make another with 
them. He confirmed this "covenant" by personally receiv- 
ing its seal. He was circumcised. He also complied with 
all its other demands, and so it was confirmed by him. He 
confirmed " the promises made" in this covenant " unto the 
fathers." To do this he became "a minister of the circum- 
cision." It is also said of this whole "covenant," that it 
was " confirmed of God, in Christ," before the ceremonial 
law was given. § Since this Abrahamic covenant was "con- 
firmed — in Christ ;" it is perfectly certain that he did not 
disannul it. To disannul and to confirm are perfectly op- 
posite to each other. What Christ confirms he does not 
therefore disannul. 

5. The visible church organized in the days of Abraham., 
is and will remain, essentially one in every subsequent age till 
the end of time. This unity of the visible church, does not 

' *Ps.73: 10 and 81: 11, Isa. 63: 8, Rom. 9: 25, Heb. 11: 25, Num. 16: 3, 1 Kings 8: 10. 
17, Isa. 41: 1. 2, Dent. 28: 9, Ps. 74: 20, Deut. 14: 2, &c. fActs 7: 38. iSee GaJ. 3: 17. 
$I>an.9: 27, See Luke 2: 21, Rom. 15: 8, Gal. 3: 17. 



Ch. 3, § 6.J CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 237 

suppose, that all its members must live at the same time ; 
nor that it has one visible head ; nor that there should be 
but one denomination ; nor that all its members must be 
equally pure ; nor external agreement in every point. But 
it does suppose, that they all sustain a visible covenant rela- 
tion to God. That the visible church is one or that all and each 
of its members are in covenant with God, appears from many 
declarations made in the scriptures. (1.) It is expressly 
called "one;" Christ "hath made both" Jews and Gentiles 
"one." (2.) It has one " head," the Lord Jesus Christ. (3.) 
It M is his body." (4.) It is represented as one " church," 
one "pillar," one " house," one "city," one "temple," one 
" Zion," one " Jerusalem," one " kingdom,"* &c. (5.) In 
all ages since its organization, it has had one "covenant" — 
" confirmed" in Christ ; one promise of this covenant inclu- 
ding temporal and spiritual blessings, and a seal of the same 
spiritual import(«).f (6.) The whole visible church is men- 
tioned as one " olive-tree," as the collective "branches " of 
one vine, and as having externally one description of mem- 
bers. Of these some are truly united to Christ by faith and 
others only nominally so.| (7.) It has one Saviour, Christ, 
and one way of justification through his righteousness im- 
puted to the soul.§ (8.) Its members have had, and will, at 
all times, have one Spirit to convert, sanctify and renew the 
soul ; to give true faith and true repentance, with all the 
other christian graces and affections, to each one of God's 
elect among them.|| Moreover it may be observed here, 
that Zion, the collective body of his people, while they re- 
tain their former appellations, have, in New Testament 
times, been "called by a new name" as the prophet predict- 
ed, fl It is the same Old Testament Zion, not a new one, 
which, under the New dispensation, was to have a " new 
name." The same Zion with an additional new name, can- 
not be, on that account, a new Zion or church. 

6. Members of this church have a right to the visible seal 
of the covenant. A covenant is a solemn agreement between 
parties. The seal is an essential part of it. By this, the 

*Eph. 1: 22. 23 and 2: 14-22 and S: 21 and 4: 3-13. 15. 16, 1 Tim. 3: 15, 1 Cor. 12: 12. 
13, Ps. 2: 6 and 48: 12 and 146: 10 and 147: 12, Isa. 62: 1, Rev. 3: 12, Jer. 7: 4, 1 Cor. 3: 
16. 17, Mat. 8: 12. (a) See § 1-1. fl Tim. 4: 8, Rom. 4: 11. JRoin. 11: 11-26, John 
15: 5. 6, Mat. 25: 1. 2. \\See Rom. 3: 22. 26. 28. 29. || Acts 11: 18, Eph. 2: 8, Heb. 12: 2 , 
2 Pet. 1: 3, Rom. 8: 33." TTThat is, christians; See Isa. 62: 2, compared with Acta 11: 26. 



233 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

promise made in the covenant is confirmed. The bargain 
therefore must be made, the agreement entered into, before 
it can be sealed. This agreement may be made by the par- 
ties themselves, or by their representatives properly appoint- 
ed. When an agreement is confirmed by a seal, it then be- 
comes a covenant, complete in all its parts. If a person 
neglects or refuses to confirm a solemn agreement made 
with him and which requires this confirming token, he be- 
comes thereby a covenant-breaker. Of such a person, God 
says; "he hath broken my covenant."* A person cannot 
break a covenant with which he is not connected as a party. 
But the moment he is thus in covenant, by his own act or by 
that of a Divinely appointed representative, its promise then 
becomes his and he has a right to its confirming seal. Mem- 
bers of the visible church sustain to God a visible covenant 
relation. They are a party in the covenant. They there- 
fore have a right to its seal whatever that may be. If those 
who are in covenant are not entitled to its seal, then no per- 
sons can be ; for those who are not in it cannot claim its 
promise, much less the seal by which that promise is confirm- 
ed. 

7. The engagements of this Abrahamic covenant are per- 
petually binding. This arises from its very nature. Those 
in this covenant are always bound in covenant to perform 
all its requirements. They may neglect or refuse to do this ; 
and by this course of conduct, they may lose a right to the 
blessings promised in it. They then become " covenant- 
breakers ;"t but this does not free them from its obligations. 
They may be, by acts of discipline, suspended or excluded 
from the privileges of the covenant. But then they are mem- 
bers suspended or excluded from its blessings. They are not 
thereby released from one of its obligations. These acts of 
discipline, however just or unjust, do not, cannot, excuse 
the party from his covenant obligations. He is still bound 
in covenant to fulfill all its stipulations. Such "covenant- 
breakers" are guilty of a double sin. They break God's 
law and transgress his covenant. As there is no way by 
which a person can escape from these covenant engagements, 
they must therefore be perpetual. 

8. Adults and infants are members of the visible church 

*3ee Ger. 17: 14. fSee Lev. 26: is; Hos. 6: 7, Rom. 1: 31. 



Ch. 3, § 8.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 239 

which God has organized. In the covenant entered into 
when this church was organized, there were two parties. God 
was one party ; and the other was composed of adults and 
infants. Men do not often, attempt to exclude God from 
being a party in this covenant. But they sometimes break 
in upon the other party. It is however, from scripture, ma- 
nifest, (1.) That adults constituted one 'portion of this par- 
ty in the covenant at its formation. This is plainly taught by 
the express language of u Divine Revelation." " Abram" 
and "all the men of his house" and "Ishmael," are ex- 
pressly mentioned as being a portion of one of the parties in 
this covenant.* These therefore, were all "circumcised." 
In New Testament times adults are represented as being 
members of the visible church which had been organized. 
The "Lord added to the church— such as should be saved." 
Of these, "men and women" are expressly mentioned. "f 
(2.) Infants are also definitely mentioned as forming the oth- 
er portion of this party in the covenant. This appears (1.) 
from the express language of scripture. "He that is eight days 
old shall be circumcised." He " that is born in thy house- — 
must—be circumcised." The " uncircumcised man-child — 
shall be cut off from his people."! Here infants at eight 
days old, are expressly recognized as being in this covenant. 
They are acknowledged as members of this church. To 
them, by the positive command of God, the seal of this cov- 
enant was to be applied. (2.) Infants as members of this 
church were to be and were actually circumcised. Isaac, 
John the Baptist and our Saviour are all mentioned as being 
circumcised in obedience to the engagements entered into in 
this covenant.^ Infants therefore formed a portion of one 
of the parties in the covenant into which God entered with 
Abraham and his seed when he first organized the visible 
church. Infants yet form a part of the members ' of this one 
only visible church which God organized. This appears (1.) 
From the fact that God who constituted them members of his 
church at its formation, has. not excluded them from it or 
from its seal. He expressly mentioned them as a portion of 
one party in the covenant. He commanded its seal to be 
applied to them. That party in the covenant made up of 

*See Gen. 17: 2. 4. 7. 20-27. fActs 2: 41. 47 and S: 12. JGen. 17: 10. 12. 14, Lev. 
12: 3. §See Gen. 21: 4, Lube 1; 59. CO and 2: 21. 



240 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

human beings, was not composed of adults alone, nor of in- 
fants alone. Both these classes of persons united, formed 
this party in that covenant, and were therefore together mem- 
bers of God's church. If Abram had refused infants a stand- 
ing in the covenant, if he had declined to apply its seal to 
them ; he would have refused the covenant of his God, as 
truly as if he had refused to apply its seal to adults. God 
made infants a portion of one party in this covenant, a por- 
tion of " his people," of his flock, of the members of his 
church when it was first organized. He and he alone had 
a right to receive them as members into his church, and he 
alone has a right to exclude them from membership. To 
receive or to exclude them is alike God's prerogative, not 
man's. God in his wisdom received infants into his church, 
into covenant relation with himself, and required its seal to 
be applied to them. He and he alone has a right to exclude 
them. And since he has not excluded them ; they still re- 
tain to him the same relation which they did when this cov- 
enant relation was formed. They have the same standing 
in the visible church which God gave them when it was or- 
ganized. He has not excluded them from it ; men have no 
right to do so. They are therefore yet a portion of its mem- 
bers. (2.) Infants are mentioned as members of his visible 
church. They are often spoken of as church members in 
the New Testament as well as in the Old. Our Saviour 
says of " infants," of " young children," of u little chil- 
dren," whom "he took — up in his arms;" — " of such is 
the kingdom of heaven," — "of God."* That the expres- 
sion •* kingdom of God" or " of heaven," denotes the visible 
church and especially the visible church in New Testament 
times, is often and very plainly taught in the word of God. 
(a).t When our Saviour says of any class of persons ; "of 
such is the kingdom of God," the expression cannot signify 
less than that these persons constitute a portion of the mem- 
bers of which it is composed. This kingdom could not be 
that of glory ; for those infants of which it was composed, 
were yet living on earth when " Christ took them up in his 
arms." They could not have been a portion of those who 
were " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and stran- 

*Mat. 19: 13. 14. 15, Mark 10: 13-16, Luke 18: 15. 1G. (a) See B. i, P. iii, Ch.l, <i 
2, par. 2. fMat. 3: 2 and 4: 17 and 10: 7 and 25: 1, Luke 12: 31 an J 22: 13, Acts 19: 8. &c". 



Ch. 3, § 8.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 241 

gers from the covenants of promise/ 7 * for then they would 
not have been portions or members of the visible "kingdom 
of God." Our Saviour therefore, instead of excluding in- 
fants from the visible church, actually and expressly recog- 
nized their standing in that church (3.) He mentions them as 
pattern members of the New Testament church ivhich is his visi- 
ble kingdom on earth. He does this when he says to his disci- 
ples ; " Except ye — become as little children, ye'shall not 
enter into the kingdom of heaven;" — "whosoever shall not 
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, — shall not en- 
ter therein."! Little children are here presented as pattern 
members of this kingdom. To be like a little child is what 
renders an adult a proper member of this kingdom. But if 
to be like a little child, renders an adult a suitable member 
of this kingdom ; to be actually a little child, will not make 
a person a less suitable member of it. Little children there- 
fore are manifestly pattern members of this kingdom. But 
this kingdom is the visible church in New Testament times. 
The eleven disciples had not yet entered this kingdom. Be- 
fore this they were true believers and followers of Christ. 
Being believers, they were justified by faith and were there- 
fore prepared, when the Lord should call, to enter the king- 
dom of glory. That before this they were true believers, is 
clear from the declaration so often made that they had a 
" little faith."! That this kingdom was not the visible church 
in Old Testament times, or during that dispensation of the 
covenant which ended at the moment Christ said " it is fin- 
ished," is manifest from the fact that when our Saviour thus 
addressed them ; they were, and for some time after, they 
remained members of that church(a). This kingdom which 
they could not enter unless they became as little children, 
must therefore have been the visible church in New Testa- 
ment times. The Lord Jesus Christ then presents " little 
children," — "infants," — such as he took " up in his arms," 
not only as members but even as pattern members of his 
visible church in New Testament times. (4.) "Children" 
and " little children" are often by inspired men addressed 
as New Testament church members. In the epistle addres- 
sed to "the churches" in " Galatia," the spirit of God in- 

*Mark 19: 16, Eph. 2: 12. fftfat. 18: 3, Mark 10: 15, Luke IS: 17. JSee Mat. 6: 30 
and 8: 26 and 14: 31 and 16: 8, Rom. 5: 1. 2 and 8: 1, &c. fa; See B. i, P. iii, Ch. 1, $ 2. 

16 



242 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

spired the apostle Paul to single out and address the infant 
members. He, like a faithful under-shepherd, addressed the 
lambs of the flock in this endearing language ; " My little 
children. 77 * The apostle John, in one very short epistle ad- 
dressed to the churches in general, divides those to whom he 
wrote into three classes, — " fathers," — " young men," and 
"little children."! These "little children" are express- 
ly mentioned as church members. The " fathers" and 
" young men" are not more definitely expressed than they 
are. Indeed, these infant members are no less than nine 
times, in this one short epistle, specially and expressly men- 
tioned by the appellation of " little children. "J When God, 
by his servants, so repeatedly addresses " little children" as 
church members in New Testament times ; no person who 
truly believes his word, can hesitate to acknowledge them as 
such. Little children, infants, are therefore expressly men- 
tioned as church members both in Old and New Testament 
times. 

9. God provided for the continuation and increase of the 
members of his church. This he did in a two-fold way. (1.) 
The children of those in covenant were to be its members 
from their earliest infancy. This truth is expressly taught 
in the word of God. Abram's "seed after" him are com- 
manded to keep God's covenant. They were, in infancy, 
to receive its seal, because they were in covenant with God.§ 
"Children — that suck the breasts," are mentioned as a part 
of the " congregation" of the Lord, more' than a thousand 
years after this covenant engagement was first made. || In 
New Testament times they are very frequently mentioned 
as composing a part, if not a principal part of God's visible 
kingdom on earth(a). One way therefore by which the vis- 
ible church was to be perpetuated from its organization on- 
ward through time, was by taking the infant seed of the 
members of this church into covenant relation with God. 
(2.) Persons who, before were not in covenant, were, both 
in Old and New Testament times, to be received, with their 
families or households, into covenant with God. This is ex- 
pressly taught both in the Old and New Testament. "When 
a stranger — will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his 

*Gal. 1: 2 and 4: 19. fl John 2: 13. 14. JSee 1 John 2: 1. 12. 13. 18. 28 and 3: 7. IS 
gmd 4: 4 and 5: 21. $G en. 17: 7. 8-1,4. || Joel 2; 16. (a)3ee§8. 



Ch. 3, § 9.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 243: 

males be circumcised ;" — " one law shall be to him that ia 
home-born and unto the stranger."* Those who were be-- 
fore " strangers from the covenants of promise," might be 
received into covenant ; but all their males must be circum^ 
cised. They must conform to the same law which the na- 
tive Israelite was bound to obey. This required the seal of 
the covenant to be applied to infants as well as to adults. In 
the New Testament, we are definitely informed that parents 
and their children, or adults and their households, were re- 
ceived into this visible church. As instances of parents and 
their children, families or households, being received into the 
church, " Lydia" and " her household," the jailer and his 
"house/ 7 &c, may be mentioned(<z).f Here are heads of 
families and their households admitted together into the 
church of God in New Testament times. Indeed, there is 
not, on record, a single instance, either in Old or New Tes- 
tament times, of a parent being admitted into the church from 
the world, and his children excluded from or suffered to re- 
main out of the covenant. From what has been here sta- 
ted, it is clear, that parents who were before strangers to the 
covenant, might, with their children, be received into the 
church. But there is not the least intimation given, in the 
whole word of God, that parents may be received into cove- 
nant, and their children excluded or suffered to remain 
among the professed enemies of God. Those parents there- 
fore who will not bring their children with them into cove- 
nant relation with God, have no. scriptural right to enter 
themselves into that relation. 

The church is God's visible kingdom on earth. In alt 
kingdoms, citizenship by birth is at least as valid as that by 
naturalization. To exclude infants, born under any govern- 
ment from the right of citizenship, or the protection of the 
laws, so far as they could enjoy the one or needed the other, 
would be perfect folly and unmitigated cruelty. To say that 
all natural born citizens must be put on a par with foreign- 
ers, and like them be naturalized before they can enjoy the 
privilege of citizens, would be very unwise in any govern- 
ment. But the God of perfect wisdom has adopted in the 
church which is his visible kingdom, no such law as would 
brand with folly any of the potentates of the earth. He has 

*Ex. 12: 4a 49, Num. 9: 14. (a)9ee P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 6. |See Acts 16: 14. 15. 31. 33. 



244 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. IV, P. I. 

not said to the children of his visible subjects ; ye are H aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel." Let men beware 
how they invade God's prerogative in this matter ! ! He 
knows who are proper subjects of his kingdom; suitable 
members of his church, at least as well as man. 

10. This church has a seal by which the promise of the co- 
venant is confirmed.-. The seal of the covenant, in Old Tes- 
tament times, was circumcision. This is called " the token 
of the covenant ;" — "the sign of circumcision ;" and M a 
seal of the righteousness of — faith. 77 * That circumcision 
was a token or seal of the covenant, and that spiritual as 
well as temporal blessings, were promised in it, are facts too 
plainly taught by the language of inspiration to be denied 
without leaning far towards infidelity. That baptism is the 
seal of the covenant in New Testament times, has already 
been shown(a). There is now a visible church. This is a 
fact known and admitted by all professing christians. A 
church supposes a covenant, and a covenant supposes a seal. 
Those persons who were added to the church were baptized. 
They first entered or were received into this visible cove- 
nant with God and then its seal was applied to them.t That 
circumcision, as a seal of the covenant, was discontinued and 
became "nothing," and that baptism is required as an ordi- 
nance in the New Testament church, are facts abundantly 
proved from the word of God.J It is also manifest that none 
Avere without baptism admitted to church fellowship after the 
death of Christ(6). Baptism is therefore the seal of the co- 
venant, which must be applied to all church members in New 
Testament times. 

11. Commemorative ordinances belong to the visible church. 
The passover was the commemorative ordinance in Old Tes- 
tament times. It commemorates the deliverance of Israel 
out of Egyptian bondage.^ It also confirmed other blessings. 
But it was not the seal of the covenant. That was made 
and sealed more than four hundred years before the Israelites 
left Egypt. || It could not therefore be sealed by the pass- 
over. It had been long before sealed by circumcision. The 

*Gen. 17: 11, Rom. 4: 11. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 11. |See Acts 2: 41. 47, and 
many other passages. JSee Acts 15: 1. 5. 10. 20. 28. 29, 1 Cor. 7: 19, Gal. 3: 17, Mai. 
29: 19, Acts 2: 41 and 8: 12 and 10: 47. 48., &c. (b) See B. i, P. iii, Ch. 3, § 8; B. i, 
P. iv, Ch. 1, § 1-3. 9. 11. §8ee Ex. 12: II. 14. ||See Ex. 12: 40, Gal. 3: 17. 



Ch. 3, § 12, 13.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 245 

Lord's supper is a commemorative ordinance in New Tes- 
tament times. It commemorates the death of Christ.* This 
also seals spiritual blessings, but not the covenant.; because 
it was instituted before the death of Christ, while circumci- 
sion continued in force as the seal of the covenant. f The 
passover and the Lord's supper are therefore commemora- 
tive ordinances which seal blessings, but do not seal the cov- 
enant. Persons formerly eat the passover,and at present par- 
take of the holy supper ; because they were or are mem- 
bers of the visible church ; because they are in covenant 
with God and have received its seal ; not to make them 
church members or to be to them a seal of the covenant. 

12. God's organization of a visible church is the very lest 
of which man can form a conception. Believing parents and 
their children composed its members at first. They do so still. 
This organization throws the restraints of God's covenant 
as well as those of his law around children who are baptized. 
The parents too were and are thus bound in covenant as 
well as by the law and natural affection to " train up" their 
children " in the way " they " should go."| If thus train- 
ed up, we have the Divine promise, that when they are old, 
they " will not depart from " that way. This organization 
secures more true scriptural piety, more scriptural knowl- 
edge, more morality, more- conformity to the word of God 
in every respect, than any other organization ever yet at- 
tempted by man.* 

13. All -attempts to organize a visible church composed on- 
ly of true believers, are absurd. No such a visible church 
has ever existed. The church in Old Testament times, had 

. in it unconverted members. In apostolic times, the church 
had its "Ananias" and " Sapphira ;" its "Simon ;" its "Hy- 
meneus and Philetus," and others who had no true interest 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. § Indeed, to organize a church 
composed only of true believers, would require a constant 
miracle by which men might be taught supernaturally, who 
were and who were not truly converted. The visible church 
can only be composed of professed believers either with or 
without their children. For uninspired men then to ima- 
gine that they could form a more pure church than that 

*See 1 Cor. 11: 23-26. tSee Luke 22: 15-20. JProv. 22: 6. §Acts 5: 1. 3. 7-10 and 
8; 13. 21, 2 Tim. 2: 17. 18, Bev. 2: 14. 15. 20. 



246 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

which existed in apostolic times and which was under the 
direction of inspired men, is truly absurd. A visible church 
composed only of true believers, is not mentioned in the 
scriptures ; nor has such a church ever existed on earth. It 
may also be remarked here, as a general truth, that those 
denominations of professing christians who make the most 
noise on this subject, have usually if not universally, the 
least amount of true scriptural piety among their members. 
But a very small proportion of them, it will be found upon 
a careful examination, are anxious to go " to the law and to 
the testimony " and to that only, as their guide in all reli- 
gious duties. They are usually too " wise in their own con- 
ceits" to be directed in all things by the wisdom of God. 
If, among the twelve apostles of Christ, one Judas who wa.9 
" a thief" and a »' devil," was found ; how superlatively ab- 
surd must be the self-importance of those who talk of a vis- 
ible church on earth composed only of true believers ! ! 

14. Discipline must be exercised in the visible church or it 
will soon become corrupt. In Old Testament times, those 
who violated any part of the ceremonial law, or neglected 
circumcision or the passover, were to be "cut off from 5? 
God's " people.' 7 * Those who violated the moral law were 
to be put to death, or punished in some other way which sup- 
posed excommunication from visible covenant relation with 
God and his people.! " Sinners " or immoral persons were 
not to be allowed a standing " in the congregation of the 
righteous."| Neglect of discipline in the Old Testament 
church opened the door for all manner of wickedness. This 
wickedness of the Jews became so great in the days of Christ's 
ministry on earth, that they eventually crucified him. In 
New Testament times, none from the world are to be admit- 
ted into the visible church till they give good evidence that 
they are true christians. § To do this they must receive 
with love what God teaches in his word and practice what 
he commands in the scriptures. No immoral persons nor 
such as reject any part of God's truth are allowed by the 
king of Zion to enter or remain in his visible church. All 
such should be suspended from sealing ordinances. || By the 

♦Gen. 17: 14, Ex. 12: 15, Lev. 7: 27. tSee Ex. 31: 14, Num. 15: 30. 32. 35; See also 
Lev. 10: 1-3 and 26: 14-39, Num. 35: 29-33, Deut. 13: 6-11, &c. $Ps. 1: 5. $See Acts 
8: 12. 37 and 10: 47, &c. ||See 1 Cor. 5: 1. 5 and 6: 8-11, Gal, 5: 19-21, 2 Tim. 3: }-5. 
Tit, 3: 10. 



Ch. 3. § 15.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 247 

neglect of discipline among professing christians, large por- 
tions of the once christian church, have become antichris- 
tian. Church discipline is therefore indispensable to the pu- 
rity of Christ's kingdom on earth. 

15. The New Testament church is five-fold. It is true? 
formal, false, nominal or antichristian. (1.) The true chris- 
tian church believes and practices all that God in his word 
requires of persons during the dispensation under which they 
live. These church members do not receive or practice for 
religion either more or less than what he commands. They 
learn from God's word what he teaches. With this they 
are satisfied. In the scriptures they find just what pleases 
them ; nor do they find any thing in those holy writings 
which they desire to explain away or reject. The word of 
God as it is, exactly suits them in every particular. To 
conform to this, they are satisfied, is their wisdom as well as 
their duty. That they comply so imperfectly with its re- 
quirements, is to them, a cause of grief; but this does not 
lead them to wish to make alterations in God's word.* (2.) 
A formal church is one which, in mere profession and ex- 
ternal actions, complies with what God teaches in his word. 
But in general the members of a formal church, have no 
true love for God's truth or for his requirements. f (3.) A 
false church adopts either more or less than God requires in 
his word. Many, if not all, its members choose, in some 
things which they call religion, to follow the directions of 
men rather than to receive and practice just what God re- 
quires. J (4.) A nominal church is one that takes the chris- 
tian name without even professing to take the word of God 
as their only rule of duty in all their religious principles and 
practices.§ (5.) An antichristian church is one which re- 
jects God's truth in some of its parts. In it the whole gos- 
pel cannot be preached. Ministers and christians who will 
believe and practice as religion, neither more nor less than 
what God teaches in his word, will not be allowed to remain 
in it ; or its members and rulers will continually disturb t]ieir 
peace while they live in exact accordance with God's holy 

*See Deut. 6: 6-8, Isa. 8: 20, Mat. 5: 16 and 28: 20. John 5: 39 and 6: 29 and 15: 14,2 
Thess. 3: 14, 1 Tim. 6: 3. 4, 2 Tim. 3: 15-17. fSee R om . 2: 20, 2 Tim. 3: 5. {See 
Mat. 15: 3.. 9, Co), 2: 22. 23, Heb, 13: 9, 2 Pet. 2: 21, Bev. 2: 9 and 3: 9. 11. §See Ma?. 
15; 8, Rev. 3: 1. 



248 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I> 

truth. This is, in principle, a persecuting church.* Be- 
longing to each of these five parts, there are or may be dif- 
ferent denominations. It is the duty of every person to be 
or become a member of some branch of the true church(a). 
16. Those who turn aside in religious matters jrom the 
word of God are guilty of the sin of division. Every person 
who becomes connected with the church, thereby pledges 
himself to serve God according to his word. If he does eith- 
er more or less as a part of his religious duties than God re- 
quires in the scriptures, he becomes thereby a covenant- 
breaker. If others join with him, they become guilty of the 
same sin. Whether many or few, a large or small propor- 
tion of the members of the true church, thus turn aside, in 
doctrine or in practice, or in both, from the word of God ; 
they are guilty of producing division. Those who adhere 
to the scriptures in principle and in practice, are not guilty 
of this sin. Those who separate from God's word as their 
only rule in religious duties, often profess much anxiety for 
union. But they ought to know that all such professions 
amount to nothing, while they believe and practice for reli- 
gion either more or less than what God's word requires. 
They are, while they do not conform entirely to the scrip- 
tures as their only rule in all religious duties, living habit- 
ually in the commission of the sin of separating from God's 
word. All who join them while they remain in such a sin- 
ful course, unite with them in sin. It ought always to be 
remembered therefore that it is not the man who adheres to 
God's truth as his only rule in all religious duties, but the 
man who separates from it, who is guilty of the sin of schism. 

*See John 16: 2, 2 Thess. 2: 3-12, 1 Tim. 4: 1-3, 2 Tim. 4: 3. 4, 1 John 2: 18. 22 
and 4: 3, 2 John 7. 

(a) Those who join any chnrch which professes to be christian, -solemnly declare be- 
fore God and the world, by the act of uniting with such church, that the religious prin- 
ciples and practices of the body with which they thus unite, express their views of 
scriptural truth. While they continue united with any professedly christian church, 
they habitually make the same declaration If therefore, the religious doctrines and 
practices of the church to which any person belongs do not express his views of scrip- 
tural truth, he is living in the sin of habitual falsehood. His falsehood too is of the 
most aggravated kind. It is nothing less than most solemnly declaring, by his habit- 
ual eonduct, that he believes what he does not believe. This is one crying sin of pro- 
fessing christians in this day of increasing depravity. This God-provoking sin often 
calls itself— liberality or charity. Every church, as well as every individual, is bound to 
adopt for religion neither more nor less than what God requires in his word. Those 
who do either, are insulting the king of Zion, by "teaching for doctrines the command- 
ments of men." This their " will-worship," they cannot palm npon God for accepta- 
ble service. 



Ch. 3, § 17.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 249 

17. The visible church has a ministry. In Old Testa- 
ment times, its ministry was composed of heads of families, 
prophets, priests and Levites. These discharged their re- 
spective duties by obeying the commandments of God. In 
executing the duties of their stations, they offered gifts and 
sacrifices according to his appointment. They also taught 
the people.* In New Testament times, the visible church 
has a ministry composed of persons each of whom (if he is 
a true servant of Christ,) sustains the office of an ambassa- 
dor of the Prince of Peace. This is not the apostolic, but 
the ministerial office which Christ gave to the eleven and 
to their successors(a). Those to whom the Lord Jesus 
Christ intrusts this office, are qualified by the regenerating 
grace of the Spirit, by a desire to serve God in the work of 
the ministry, by a capability of teaching in a good degree 
whatever Christ has commanded in his word, and then they 
must receive the office of an ambassador " for Christ" from 
those who are properly authorized to transfer it to others.t 
Those who hold the office of the ministry and are therefore 
authorized to preach the gospel and administer New Testa- 
ment ordinances, and they only, can ordain or set persons 
apart to the office of the christian ministry. t The minis- 
ters of Christ all have the same commission. This requires 
the same essential qualifications in each minister. It de- 
mands the same essential duties of all and each of them.t 
That thing called a Diocesan bishop, is not mentioned in the 
word of God, unless it is included " in the man of sin — the 
son of perdition." Besides, the idea that the same commis- 
sion (and there is but one given to the eleven and their true 
successors,) should confer two distinct offices, the one, that 
of a Diocesan bishop, the other, that of a minister of Christ, 
is a perfect absurdity. 

The succession of ministers, not of Diocesan bishops, may 
easily be traced from the apostles down to the present time. 
Before the year 100, the apostles had planted churches in 
Syria, in Asia Minor, and in Italy. They had ordained a 
number of faithful men to the ministry. From the year 100 
till 200, many churches planted by these faithful men, ex- 

*Gen. 4: 3. 4 and S: 20 and 12: 7 and 20: 7 and 35: 1, Ex. 40: 13, Num. 8: 6. 7. 11, Mai. 
2: 7. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 5. fMat. 23: 20, 2 Cor. 5: 20, 1 Tim. 3: 1-7 and 4 
14, 2 Tim. 2: 2, Tit. 1: 5-11. {See Heb. 5: 1-4. 



250 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

isted in the north of Italy and in the south of France. These 
ministers and their successors, continued to preach, establish 
churches and ordain other faithful men to the ministerial of- 
fice, till the reformation commenced. Then the true church 
which had existed all through " the dark ages" under differ- 
ent names given them in different ages and countries, such 
as Waldenses, Albigenses, Lionists, Paulicians, Hussites, 
Lollards, Wickliffites, &c, became one with the reformed. 
By these the ordination of the reformers was acknowledged 
and thus confirmed. Lax discipline and human inventions 
began to be introduced into other parts of the church about 
the year 248. About the year 300 the last persecution by 
the heathen ended. A system which eventually terminated 
in Diocesan Episcopacy, was introduced into several large 
churches by Constantine about the year 320. But the true 
church still retained the apostolic principles and practices. 
It retained the Presbyterian form of government taught in 
the word of God, and it uniformly rejected the domineering 
claims of Diocesan Episcopacy. For doing this, its mem- 
bers suffered many long and severe persecutions. Many 
congregations of these true christians were found in France, 
Italy, Germany, England, &c, during every part of the 
dark ages. About the year 560, the Syrian christians were 
driven by persecution from their own country to the north 
of Italy. These became united with the Lionists about the 
year 590. The enemies of the true church, while they were 
persecuting the people of God, destroyed most of their ec- 
clesiastical records. But enough remains to show that their 
principles,their practices and ordination wereapostolical(a).* 
Those persons who are intrusted with the ministerial office, 
and those only, have a right to administer the ordinance of 
christian baptism(&), or perform any of its other peculiar 
functions. Wicked or ignorant men may hold the external 
office of the gospel ministry ; but they are mere wolves in 
sheep's clothing. They are ambassadors for Christ only in 
mere externals. They have no heart for his service, no 
love for his cause, or they would not enter the ministry 
without the qualifications which are essentially necessary in 

(a) See Dr. Allix's Remarks, Adam Blair's History of the Waldenses, &c. *See 
Act* 11: 26, Rom. 1: 15, Rev. 1: 4. 11. (b) See B, i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 5, 



Ch. 3, § 18, 19.] CHURCH MEMBERS BAPTIZED. 251 

one who is to teach, both by precept and example, what our 
Saviour has revealed in the scriptures of truth.* 

18. Those whp have no interest in the covenant made with 
Abram and his seed, are not members of the visible church. 
God has organized no other church, but that which he form- 
ed in the days of Abram. He has formed no other visible 
covenant relation with his professed people, but that which 
was entered into with Abram and with his literal and spirit- 
ual seed. This covenant was confirmed in Christ. It was 
to be everlasting. That church has not been disorganized. 
That covenant has not been disannulled. Though its seal 
has been changed, yet the covenant remains in full force. 
By rejecting this covenant, men refuse to receive an inter- 
est in the only visible church which God has ever organi- 
zed on earth. By turning away from this, they slight the 
covenanted mercies of God(a). As therefore there is not 
now and never has been, any other visible church organi- 
zed on earth, but that which God formed in the days of 
Abram ; so those who are not members of some branch of 
that church cannot be members of any. They may form 
human associations ; but these are not Divinely organized 
churches(^). Men ought to make a solemn pause before 
they, for any consideration whatever, reject or turn aside 
from the covenant of God, and set at naught his grace in or- 
ganizing a visible church among our guilty race. 

19. The privileges of the visible church are extended in 
New Testament times. This may be observed in several 
particulars. (1.) Since the death of Christ, the seal of the 
covenant has been actually extended to females. Before 
this it was virtually theirs, in consequence of their relation 
to the males. (2.) Infants of parents, only one of whom is 
in covenant, are entitled now to its seal.f (3.) Its bles- 
sings are offered to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. (4.) 
All its members are freed from the bondage of the ceremo- 
nial law. (5.) Its ministers may now be taken from any 
family. (6.) It has a greater amount of written revelation. 
In these and other respects the privileges of the visible 
church are extended. But in no instance is any privilege, 
in New Testament times, taken away from the church. 

*&>e Mat. 28: 19. 20, 2 Tim. 2: 2. (a) See § 1-9. (b) See $ 1. f^ee 1 Cor. 7: 14, 



252 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. I. 

Not the least evidence is found in the whole word of God, 
to show that the privileges of the New Testament church 
are to be less in any respect than those of ^he Old. It can- 
not be supposed then that infants who, when the covenant 
was first made and during its whole Old Testament dispen- 
sation, constituted more than one half of one of the parties 
in it, should, in New Testament times, be excluded from it 
and from the use of its seal. God has not told us, in any 
form of words, that he has excluded infants from their stand- 
ing in the covenant. " He has not taken this privilege from 
them or from their parents. God received the infant with 
the parent into covenant relation with himself. In many 
respects he has extended the privileges of the church in New 
Testament times. He has not diminished these, nor taken 
them from infants. That he has done either, is unsupport- 
ed by any evidence, and is not therefore to be believed by 
intelligent men. 

20. In the organization of the visible church, bajrtism with 
water is included as the seal of the covenant in New Testa- 
ment times. This will appear by presenting the principal 
parts of this subject before the mind at once. (1.) The visi- 
ble church was organized in the days of Abram. (2.) Its 
members were adults and infants. (3.) Circumcision, when 
the covenant was first made, was its seal. (4.) It was to be 
applied to infants whose parents were in covenant. (5.) 
God has not excluded infants from the church or from a 
right to the seal of the covenant. (6.) In New Testament 
times, baptism is the seal of this covenant. (7.) If one pa- 
rent is in covenant, so are the children.* (8.) Adopted 
children are in covenant and therefore have a right to its 
seal. f (a). It appears therefore that the very organization 
of the visible church included the application of water to in- 
fants in the ordinance of christian baptism ; because the seal 
of the covenant, whatever it is, belongs to infants. That 
seal is now baptism ; therefore they are to receive that or- 
dinance ; for it is now the seal of the covenant. 

*See 1 Cor. 7: 14. fSee Gen. 17: 12. 13. 27. (a) See $ 2-5. 8. 10. 17 



Ch. 1, § 1.] TJftNGS, NOT TO BE BAPTIZED. 253 

PART SECOND. 

WHAT MAY NOT, AND WHAT MAY BE BAPTIZED. 

CHAPTER I. 

NOT THINGS, BUT PERSONS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED. 

1. An inanimate substance cannot receive the ordinance of 
christian baptism. This appears, (1.) From the fact that 
when the Lord Jesus Christ commissioned men to adminis- 
ter christian baptism, he did not authorize them to baptize 
inanimate matter. In this commission, he directs men to 
teach w all nations, baptizing them ;" # but in it he gives no 
authority for baptizing mere material substances. Men 
therefore have no right to do so. (2.) It is not so much as 
intimated in the word of God, that inspired men, at any time, 
administered this ordinance to things. There is therefore 
no authority from example for baptizing material substances 
or mere things. (3.) These substances are, in their nature, 
incapable of receiving what is signified in christian baptism; 
and they therefore cannot receive that ordinance(a). As 
there is no authority in the word of God for baptizing bells, 
buildings, &c, so no person has a right to apply water to 
them in the name of the Trinity. As they are totally inca- 
pable of receiving what is signified in the ordinance, so to 
attempt to baptize .them, is only a solemn farce over which 
Christianity weeps, and from which common sense turns 
away with disgust. 

Under the Old Testament dispensation of the church, 
things, as well as persons, were to be ceremonially purified. 
These ceremonial " washings" are, by the Spirit of God, 
called (Barf e ri<fpois)' baptisms.! Divine wisdom informs us, 
in more than twenty passages of scripture, that these bap- 
tisms were, by the authority of God, performed by sprink- 
ling^). Moreover, it is said of the Jews, that after " they 
come from market, except they wash" (BcwrTjtfwvraj) or bap- 
tize, " they eat not ;" "and many other things — they hold — 
as the washing" (Barfrirf^ovg) or baptizing "of cups and pots, 
and brazen vessels, and tables(c). | But for this they had no 
Divine authority. Nor has any person any Divine author- 

*Mat. 28: 19. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 9. fHeb. 9: 10 in Greek, (b) See B. iii- 
P. i, Ch. 1, £ 3. 7. tMark 7: 4 in Greek, (c) See B. i, P. vi, Ch. 1, $ 2. 



254 BIBLE BAPTISM. k [b. IV, P. II. 

ity for baptizing, in New Testament times, any inanimate 
substance. To attempt to do so, is only solemn trifling. 

2. Animals cannot receive the christian ordinance of bap- 
tism. No authority is given to men by our Saviour to admin- 
ister the ordinance of baptism to animals any more than to 
inanimate matter. Nor are we informed in the scriptures 
that inspired men ever baptized a single animal. Moreover, 
animals cannot receive what is signified in that holy ordi- 
nance, any more than inanimate matter can(a). Animals 
therefore cannot be baptized. To attempt to baptize them is 
to insult Zion's King. 

3. Human beings and they only can receive christian bap- 
tism. To sustain this position many arguments may be pre- 
sented. (1.) To them, and only to them, the Lord Jesus 
Christ requires the ordinance to be administered. He directs 
his ministering servants to " teach all nations, baptizing 
them.' 7 (2.) In obedience to this command, his inspired 
servants baptized " both men and women."* These and 
many other portions of God's word, teach that human beings 
alone were to be, and were baptized by Divine authority. 
They alone are capable of receiving what is signified in 
christian baptism(a). They only can have the blood of 
Christ applied to them by the holy Spirit in his converting 
and sanctifying influences. To them only can the sign of 
this work of grace be therefore applied with propriety. Hu- 
man beings therefore and no others, can receive christian 
baptism which signifies the work of the Spirit on the soul. 
To receive what is signified in this ordinance is not incon- 
sistent with their nature. They may therefore be baptized. 
To receive what christian baptism signifies is totally incon- 
sistent with the nature of all other creatures. These others 
therefore cannot receive christian baptism. It follows then 
that human beings, and they only, can receive the ordinance 
of christian baptism. 

CHAPTER II. 

WHAT IS NOT AND WHAT IS, IN THE SUBJECT, ESSENTIAL TO 
BAPTISM. 

1. To render the ordinance of baptism valid, it is not ?ie- 
eessary that its subject should be a true christian. Many per- 

(a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $-9. *Acts 8: 12. 



Ch. 2, § 1.] WHAT NOT INDISPENSABLE. 255 

sons are, in the word of God, mentioned as baptized church 
members, who were nevertheless entirely destitute of vital 
godliness. Persons who are publicly recognized as church 
members must have been baptized ; because by baptism 
that public recognition is first made. But church members 
at Sardis, at Laodicea, and at other places, who, because they 
were publicly acknowledged as such, must have been bapti- 
zed, had, notwithstanding their membership, only "a name" 
to live while they were, in reality, "wretched and miserable 
and poor and blind and naked."* Such also were Ananias 
and Sapphira, who lied unto " the Holy Ghost."f Though 
these were baptized church members, yet they were mani- 
festly destitute of an interest in the Lord Jesus Christ. Ma- 
ny other instances are on record in the scriptures, of per- 
sons who, in a state of unbelief, were publicly recognized 
as baptized church members. As a specimen of these, Si- 
mon, the Samaritan sorcerer may be noticed. In his case, 
we may learn what things are not, in the subject, necessary 
to the valid existence of christian baptism. From the ac- 
count given of him, J it is evident that before, at and after his 
baptism- he was a hardened sinner. (1.) He was and had 
been for years, by profession, a sorcerer or public deceiver. 
(2.) He was an unbelieving, impenitent, unconverted, unho- 
ly man. (3.) He had no spiritual knowledge or perception 
of Divine things. (4.) He was " a natural man," who did 
not, and could not, in that state, receive or know " the things 
of the Spirit of God."§ (5.) He had no " part" or " lot" 
in the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ. (6.) He was, at 
and after his baptism, still " in the gall of bitterness and in 
the bond of iniquity." But notwithstanding all this, Simon 
" was baptized." To the existence then of the ordinance of 
christian baptism, it is not necessary that the person bapti- 
zed, should believe or repent, or be regenerated, or be con-, 
verted, or be holy, or have spiritual knowledge of the na- 
ture of baptism, or of any other ordinance, or have a per- 
sonal interest in Christ ; because Simon was destitute of all 
these spiritual graces and affections, and yet he " was bap^ 
tized." Besides all his other sins, he professed to be a true 
believer in Christ ; while he imagined that " the gift of 

*Rev. 3: 1, 15-17. jActs 5; 1-3. JSqe Acts 8: 8-13. 18-24. $1 Cor. 2:14,. 



256 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

God" might M be purchased with money." In making this 
profession, he was guilty of uttering a positive falsehood, 
either because he was self-deceived, or because he wished to 
deceive others. Though both in words and in the very act 
of receiving christian baptism, he was guilty of all this sin ; 
still it is declared, he " was baptized." All this wickedness 
did not render it impossible for him to be baptized. It did 
not invalidate this ordinance. Notwithstanding all this, his 
baptism was valid. True religion in the subject is not there- 
fore necessary to the validity of christian baptism ; for Si- 
mon, who was not a true christian, but a very wicked man, 
" was baptized." 

2. If true faith was essential to christian baptism, man 
could not administer that ordinance. To "search the heart"* 
is a Divine prerogative. God alone can see into the soul of 
man. He can determine whether true faith exists there or 
not. A minister of Christ, however faithful, intelligent and 
pious, cannot "search the heart." He may be deceived as 
to the real piety, the true faith, of any person who may de- 
sire to receive any ordinance of the christian church. If 
true faith was indispensable to the validity of baptism ; the 
minister could not, in any case, certainly tell, whether he 
was engaged in administering a solemn christian ordinance, 
or performing an act of mere mockery. Besides, the min- 
isterial commission requires those to whom it is intrusted, 
to teach and baptize ; but it does not direct them to search 
the heart or work miracles. It is evident therefore, that 
since mere men are empowered to baptize ; true faith, the 
existence of which in the subject they cannot at any time 
certainly determine, is not essential to the validity of the or- 
dinance. 

3. No class of men really hold that true faith in the subject 
is essential to valid baptism. Those who adopt the anti- 
christian fancy that baptism is regeneration(a), and there- 
fore maintain that faith is communicated in the very act of 
administering this ordinance, do not, of course, say that the 
person baptized had this faith before its administration com- 
menced. Those who assert that mankind are born holy, 
cannot suppose that, if any of them, are baptized before they 

*Jer. 17: 10, Rev. 2: 23. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 10. 



Ch. 2, § 4.] WHAT NOT INDISPENSABLE. 257 

sin, they can have faith conferred upon them either at or 
before their baptism ; because true christian faith, as one of 
its exercises, leads those who possess it to trust in Christ to 
save their souls from the guilt of sin. Those who are per- 
fectly holy, or are totally free from sin before they receive 
baptism, cannot need this true christian faith. Some persons 
however, by their professions, would lead the unwary to sup- 
pose that they hold to what they call believer's baptism. 
They thus intimate that true faith must invariably precede 
valid baptism. A person unacquainted with their practice 
would suppose, from their language, that they never admit- 
ted any baptism to be valid unless the subject of it was a true 
believer before he received the ordinance. But instead of 
this, they seldom or never require, from those whom they 
immerse, such an amount of scriptural evidence of the exis- 
tence of true faith in their soul, as would convince an intel- 
ligent christian that they, even in profession, really believed 
in the Lord Jesus Christ. The immersed frequently prove by 
their actions, that, like Simon the sorcerer, they are yet in 
a state of unbelicf(a). Their habitual conduct often shows 
that they always lived " without God in the world."* If 
however, such persons should, after their immersion, be tru- 
ly converted to God and to a love of his truth, by the pow- 
er of iiis Spirit ; immersers would not re-immerse them. 
Thus they prove by their actions in relation to this matter, 
that they do not really hold to the notion that true faith is 
essential to valid baptism. They hold that those who are 
not true believers, may be baptized. This they prove by 
their practice, however differently they often talk. 

Indeed, so far as scriptural evidence of regeneration is 
concerned, the baptized among Pedobaptist christians give 
altogether better evidence of having experienced the renew- 
ing grace of God's spirit, than the immersed do. This can 
be easily illustrated by the example of any of those Pedobap- 
tists who actually take the word of God for their only rule 
of duty, and who therefore train up their children in the way 
they "should go." 

4. Certain things in the subject are essential to the very 
existence of christian baptism. These may be known by 

(a) See $ 1. *Eph. 2; 12. 

17 



258 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

him who administers the ordinance. If they could not, he 
could never be certain that the person to whom he applied 
water, was really baptized. These are few and very plain. 
(1.) The subject of christian baptism must be a human be- 
ing^). None but human beings can be baptized. Men have 
no authority to administer this ordinance to any but to human 
beings, (2.) The subject of christian baptism must be a sin- 
ful creature. None but sinful creatures can be regenerated, 
converted, or have the blood of Christ applied to their souls. 
No others therefore can receive what is signified in christian 
baptism(J). Hence to any others, the ordinance would be 
a mere unmeaning ceremony. (3.) In his nature, the sub- 
ject of baptism must be capable, at the time, or before, or 
after it is administered, of receiving what is signified in the 
ordinance. (4.) He must be received into that covenant of 
which baptism is a seal. This must be done at the time or 
before the ordinance is administered. And, as some are call- 
ed covenant-breakers to whom its seal was not applied, and 
because it was not applied to them ;• so a person must be 
acknowledged to be in covenant at least the instant before 
the seal is applied to him(c). It will be evident to those who 
examine this matter carefully, that these four things and no 
more are really necessary to the very existence of christian 
baptism. They will see that men are authorized by our Sa- 
viour to administer christian baptism to human beings and 
no other creatures; that only sinful creatures, and not the per- 
fectly holy, can receive this ordinance ; that the baptized 
must, in their nature, be capable of receiving what is signi- 
fied in christian baptism, and that those to whom it is ad- 
ministered must be in the covenant which God entered into 
with his professed people. 

If it is affirmed that infants cannot enter into covenant 
relation with God ; it may be answered that Divine wisdom 
teaches that they can. God has received them into covenant 
with himself. He certainly knows who are proper persons 
to form that relation. He has long since received infants 
into covenant with himself. Men have no right to exclude 
them. God has received them.t What man is so foolhardy 
as to usurp the Divine prerogative of excluding them from 

(a) See Ch. 1, $ 3. (b) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 9. *See Gen. 17: 14. (a) Sec P. i , 
Ch. 3, $ 6. tSee Gen. 17: 7-17. 



Ch. 3. § 1.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 259 

an interest in God's covenant 1 He who does so, claims the 
right of dictating to his Maker. He declares, by such an 
act, that he can reform the covenant which Omniscience has 
made. He thus more than intimates that though God has, 
long since, received infants into this covenant with himself, 
as a portion of one of its parties ; yet he, a mere man, will, 
in the plenitude of his wisdom, exclude them from it and 
from the use of its seal. From such an act, what intelligent 
christian will not shrink ? 

CHAPTER III. 

ADULTS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OP BAPTISM. 

1. True believers are proper subjects of baptism. Though 
true faith is not essential to the existence of christian bap- 
tism(a), yet every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ has 
a right to be baptized. This appears from many plain dec- 
larations of scripture. " The people of Samaria" — " be- 
lieved — and — were baptized ;" — Philip said to the Eunuch, 
" if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest" be bapti- 
zed ; the Philippian jailer "believed — and was baptized ;'' 
"Crispus" — -with " many of the Corinthians — believed and 
were baptized."* These and many similar passages of scrip- 
ture show that true believers ought to be baptized. 

In the declaration ; "he that belie veth and is baptized 
shall be saved,"! we are taught that the true believer shall 
be saved. The baptism here mentioned is represented as ex- 
isting at the same time with truefaith. The believer is bap- 
tized ; not he shall or will be baptized. This baptism is rep- 
resented as being administered either at the moment the 
person believes or before. As this, together with faith, ap- 
pears to be inseparably connected with salvation, so it is more 
than probable that spiritual baptism or regeneration is here 
intended. This kind of baptism always takes place the in- 
stant true faith is produced in the soul. Every true believer 
is therefore baptized with this spiritual baptism. But if bap- 
tism with water is intended ; then, as it is represented as ac- 
tually existing the moment the person believes ; so it must 
have been administered before true faith was produced in the 
soul ; because baptism with water cannot be administered in 

(a) See Ch. 2, § 1-3. *Acts 8: 9. 12. 30. 37 and 16: 31. 33 and 18: 8. IMark 16: 16. 



260 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. IV, P. II. 

an indivisible point of time. But if the declaration was, (as 
it is frequently though very incorrectly represented,) be- 
lieve and be baptized ; it would simply prove that true be- 
lievers ought to be baptized. This is a truth often taught in 
other passages of scripture, and which no believer in bap- 
tism with water ever pretends to deny. All such maintain 
that true believers ought to be baptized, if the ordinance had 
not, before they believed, been administered to them. 

Moreover, if the argument which immerse rs attempt to 
fabricate from this passage, be examined ; it will exclude 
from salvation, every infant which it would exclude from 
baptism. The exclusives say(a), faith must precede baptism ; 
infants cannot believe ; therefore infants cannot be baptized. 
By the same kind of logic, infants must be excluded from 
salvation. They might say with equal or even with greater 
propriety ; faith must precede salvation ; infants cannot be- 
lieve ; therefore infants cannot be saved. But God does not 
say that faith must precede baptism ; and the spirit of God, 
by his new-creating power, can produce the principle or 
grace of faith in the soul of an infant, as easily as he 
produced it in that of Saul of Tarsus.* That sophistry must 
be worse than useless which can, with equal ease, exclude 
infants from baptism and from eternal felicity. 

2. Those who have received spiritual baptism or have been 
truly regenerated, are to be baptized with water. (1.) These 
are always true believers(^). To believe and to be spiritu- 
ally baptized or regenerated, are only different expressions 
to denote different parts of the same change. When there- 
fore this change is described by one word which indicates 
that the person is entitled to water baptism ; his right to it 
is as clearly proved as when for this purpose, a different 
word is used. The believer may be baptized. Those who 
are spiritually baptized, are believers; therefore these, be- 
ing true believers, are to be baptized with water. (2.) Pe- 
ter asks, "can any man forbid water that " Cornelius and 
his friends, " should not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we ?" — " and he commanded them to 
be baptized. "t The very reason given to show that these 
persons ought to be baptized with water, is ; they had been 

(a) But God does not, nor do they practice on this principle. *3ee Acts 9: 1. 5. G. 
13. 17. 20. (b) See $ 1. tActs. 10: '21. 47. 43. 



Ch. 3. § 3, 4.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 261 

baptized with the Holy Ghost, or had been regenerated. It 
is certain therefore that those who have been spiritually bap- 
tized ought to receive the ordinance of christian baptism. 

3. Those who truly repent are to be baptized. Faith and 
repentance do not exist seperately in the same person. He 
who is truly regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit, 
at the very same instant receives into his soul the principles 
of true faith and true repentance. These principles are ac- 
tive. They manifest themselves in the life of those who re- 
ceive them. The true penitent therefore, because he is a 
true believer, may and ought to be baptized (a). That those 
who exercise evangelical repentance ought to be baptized, 
is also taught in the command ; " repent and be baptized ev- 
ery one of you."* This language clearly intimates that 
every one who truly repents, is in duty bound, if he had not 
before been baptized, to receive the ordinance of christian 
baptism. 

4. Professed believers are proper subjects of baptism. A 
personal profession of faith in Christ, is not in the scriptures 
represented as essential to the existence of the ordinance of 
christian baptism. To make such a profession, while the 
heart is not right with God, is an act of egregious wicked- 
ness. But notwithstanding all this, those who " profess their 
faith in Christ and obedience to him," have a right to be bap- 
tized. Those who, in profession, believe in Christ, profes- 
sedly believe what he teaches in his word ; and they actu- 
ally, in external matters, obey all his holy requirements. 
Those who thus profess their faith in Christ and prove the 
sincerity of their profession by their actions, are to be bap- 
tized. All this is definitely taught in the case of the Sama- 
ritan sorcerer(J). He "believed" in profession, "and was 
baptized," while he had in reality " neither part nor lot " in 
true religion ; while he was in fact " in the gall of bitter- 
ness and in the bond of iniquity. "f It is expressly stated 
that this sorcerer " was baptized." It is also definitely taught 
that he was not a true, but only a professed believer. In 
his case therefore, it is explicitly taught that a mere profes- 
sed believer may be baptized. Many other publicly recog- 
nized church members who as such must have been baptized, 

(a) See $ 1. *Acts 2: 38. (b) See Ch, 2, $ 1. jActs 8: 12. 21. 



262 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

are mentioned in the New Testament as being destitute of 
true faith. Several members of the churches at Pergamos, 
and Thiatira held to " the doctrine of Balaam " and were 
" fornicators." Some church members at Sardis had only a 
H name" to live, while they were spiritually "dead." Not 
a few of the Laodicians were "luke-warm" professors, 
while they were "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and 
blind, and naked."* But these "luke-warm," — "blind," 
— "dead," — " miserable," — Balaamite professors, were bap- 
tized church members. Their baptism too must have been 
valid, or they could not have been acknowledged members 
of these churches. It is evident therefore that those who 
make a credible profession of their faith, are to be baptized. 
It is also evident that their baptism is valid, though they af- 
terwards prove that they were destitute of faith ; though 
they may afterwards become ever so immoral. By these 
sins, they become and remain covenant-breakers. But the 
demands of the covenant constantly remain in full force. 
By breaking God's covenant as well as his law, they become 
more guilty and more hardened than other sinners. A hyp- 
ocrite in the church becomes, by his detestable wickedness, 
odious to God and man, if not to the devil. But he does not 
by his immoralities, render his baptism invalid. 

5. Females are proper subjects of baptism. They were, 
by our Saviour, required to be baptized. The ordinance 
was actually administered to them by inspired men. (1.) 
They were commanded to be baptized. When our Saviour 
directs his ministering servants to "teach all nations, bapti- 
zing them ;"t he commands females to be baptized, because 
females constitute an essential part of every nation. (2.) 
Females were baptized by inspired men. It is expressly sta- 
ted that " women" were baptized. " Lydia" of Thyatira 
is even named as one female who " was baptized."! (3.) 
Families or households generally if not universally, include 
females. Every family therefore, the baptism of which is 
mentioned in the word of God, presents evidence to prove 
that females were baptized. Of this description are the fam- 
ilies of the jailer, of Stephanas, of Cornelius,^ &c. Fe- 

* Rev. 2: 12. 14. 15. 18. 20 and 3: 1. 14. 16. 17. fMat. 28: 19. J Acts ft 12 and 18. 14 

15. $See Acts 10: 2. 33. 44. 47. 48 and 16: 32. 33, 1 Cor. 1: 16. 



Ch. 3, § 6.] ADULTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 263 

males were baptized by Divine authority. They therefore 
may with propriety receive that holy ordinance. 

In Old Testament times, females were not actually, but 
they were virtually, circumcised. They had this virtual 
circumcision in consequence of their relation to the males. 
That they were virtually circumcised appears from the fact 
that they eat the passover. No " uncircumcised person*' 
was permitted to do this. But " the whole assembly," — 
" all the congregation of Israel,'** and^ therefore females, 
were positively commanded to keep the passover. These 
must therefore have been virtually circumcised. But in 
New Testament times, females as well as males, actually re- 
ceive the seal of the covenant into which God formerly en- 
tered with his visible people. 

6. Evidence to prove that adults are to be baptized, does 
not militate against infant baptism. It is positively proved 
from the word of God, that adult persons, both male and fe- 
male, are proper subjects of baptism. True believers, pro- 
fessed believers, the spiritually baptized, and those who re- 
pent, are to be baptized with water(a\ But it by no means 
follows, that because adults may be baptized, therefore in- 
fants may not receive that ordinance. The fact that adults 
were to be circumcised, did not prove that infants were to be 
excluded from that " seal of the righteousness of — faith."f 
To prove that u men and women' 5 were baptized, is to say 
nothing whatever against infant baptism- Such proof might 
favor, but cannot possibly oppose, the baptism of children. 
It might, with a good degree of propriety, be said, that since 
the child of a circumcised Israelite must be circumcised, 
therefore the child of a baptized christian or spiritual Israel- 
ite, must, or at least may, be baptized. But if a parent may 
be baptized, it does not, cannot follow as a legitimate conse- 
quence, that his child must remain unbaptized till he arrives 
at mature age. The fact then that adults are to be baptized, 
does not prove or intimate that infants may not receive the 
same ordinance. 

It is also worthy of remark that all persons who believe 
in baptism with water, maintain that adults who profess their 
faith in Christ, may be baptized, if they have not before re- 

*Ex. 12: 6. 47. 48, see also Lev, 21: 10-13, Deut. 16: 11. (a) See % 1-5. fSee Geo. 
17: 11.24, Rom, 4:11. 



264 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

ceived that holy ordinance. When therefore immersers 
prove that adults are proper subjects of baptism, they mere- 
ly prove what all believers in baptism with water maintain 
as firmly as they do. But not the least evidence is thus fur- 
nished to prove that infants are not to receive this holy or- 
dinance. 

CHAPTER IV. 

INFANTS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM. 

1. They are human beings. A mere look at an infant 
will prove this position to any person of reflection. Every 
one can perceive at a glance that infants do not belong to 
the inanimate, to the brute, or to the angelic creation. No 
person who believes the evidence of his senses can refuse to 
admit that they are a part of the human race. They are 
therefore possessed of one thing which, in the subject, is es- 
sential to the ordinance of christian baptism(a). 

2 Infants are sinful creatures. None but sinful creatures 
can possibly receive christian baptism(Z>). That infants are 
sinful is clear both from the word of God and from the ex- 
perience of mankind. (1.) The scriptures teach that in- 
fants are sinful. It is declared that believers " were by na- 
ture the children of wrath even as others."* As God's 
wrath is against nothing but what is sinful; so those who are 
by nature children of wrath, must be by nature sinful. Be- 
lievers and others are by nature children of wrath ; they 
must therefore be sinful by nature. Infants have the same 
human nature which adults have ; theirs must therefore be 
a sinful nature. The inspired Psalmist positively declares ; 
" behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my moth- 
er conceive me."t David " was shapen in iniquity" and 
"conceived in sin." This language shows that he was a 
sinner in some sense as soon as he was a human being. 
The Psalmist also affirms ; " the wicked — go astray as soon 
as they are born, speaking lies."! In this passage, the very 
first actions of men and their first articulate, and perhaps in- 
articulate sounds, are mentioned as sinful. Israel is " cal- 
led a transgressor from the womb."§ It is also stated that 

(b) See Ch. 1, § 3, Ch. 2, $ 4. (b) See Ch. 2, S 4, par. 2. *Epb. 2; 3. fPs. 51: 5 
tPs. 59: 3. $Isa. 48: 8. ►*■•»■ 



Ch. 4, § 3, 4.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 265 

"both Jews and Gentiles," (and there are infants among 
both,) " are all under sin ;" — " there is none righteous, no, 
not one ;" — " there is none that doeth good, no, not one;" — 
"all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."* 
These and similar passages of scripture prove as conclusively 
as language can do, that infants and all other human beings, 
are sinful. (2.) The experience of mankind proves that infants 
are sinful. All see that infants are liable to pain and sickness 
and death. They suffer all these in every stage of their exis- 
tence. These are the effects of sin. It cannot, without blas- 
phemy, be supposed for a moment that a perfectly just and 
Omnipotent Being, would inflict upon absolutely holy im- 
mortal creatures, all the distresses which infants often suffer. 
They must therefore, in the sight of God, be sinful. All 
who believe in a holy and just Ruler of the universe, must 
maintain that infants, in some sense, are sinful creatures. 
Those who trust to the evidence of their own senses, know 
that they suffer the consequences of a nature polluted with 
sin. All see, or may see, in them, the effects of sin. All 
therefore know, in their own experience, that infants are by 
nature sinful creatures. Human beings of every age, from 
their earliest infancy to the latest period of life, suffer death; 
and death "entered into the world" by "sin ;"t every indi- 
vidual therefore, old or young, who is liable to death, is sin- 
ful by imputation, by nature or by practice. But as all in- 
fants are liable to death ; so, in the sight of God, they must 
be all sinful in some sense. This all know or may know, 
by their own observation and experience. 

3. Infants are capable of receiving what is signified by 
christian baptism. It denotes the work of the Spirit on the 
soul(a). The holy Spirit is certainly as capable of produ- 
cing a new nature, a new heart, true faith, love to God, and 
every other essential christian principle, in an infant, as in 
Saul of Tarsus, while "breathing out threatenings and 
slaughter against the disciples of" Christ.f By the Almigh- 
ty power of God's Spirit therefore, an infant can be regen- 
erated and have the blood of Christ applied to its soul. More- 
over, infants have been truly converted or born "of the 

*Rom. 3: 9. 10. 12. 23. fRom. 5: 12. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 9. J Acts 9: 1.4. 
5 and 26: 13. 



266 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

Spirit." David, after his child's death, said; "I shall go 
to him."* This expression intimates that the child was in a 
state and place of happiness ; and that it had therefore been 
born " of the Spirit," and had thus been prepared to " enter 
into the kingdom of God" above. f Jeremiah was u sancti- 
fied" from his earliest infancy ; and John the Baptist was 
" filled with the Holy Ghost" from his birth. Samuel was 
but a young "child" when he "ministered before the 
Lord." Timothy " from a child" knew " the holy scrip- 
tures."! These instances clearly show that infants and 
very young children have enjoyed the renewing grace of 
God's Spirit. They teach that they have experienced what 
is signified in christian baptism. 

4. Infants are capable of being in covenant with God. 
That they can sustain this covenant relation with God, is ex- 
pressly and frequently taught in the scriptures. God made 
"a covenant with" Noah and his "seed after" him. Abram's 
infant "seed," as well as himself, were required to enter into 
"covenant" with God. This they did according to the Di- 
vine direction. Again the Israelites positively affirm that 
the "Lord — made a covenant with" them " in Horeb." This 
"covenant" they declare was not " made with" their "fa- 
thers" but with them in person. § The covenant which was 
made on a mountain which, as a whole, was called Horeb, 
while one part or peak of it received the name of Sinai, was 
entered into forty years before this language was used. 
When therefore this covenant was made with them, most 
of them must have been infants and young children. || That 
infants were received, by the special command of God, into 
covenant relation with himself, is a fact frequently stated in 
his word. But it is not necessary to mention any more in- 
stances. Those already mentioned are sufficient to convince 
those who believe the scriptures to be a revelation from God, 
that infants are capable of being in covenant with him. But 
if the)' can be a party or a portion of a party in a covenant, 
then they can receive its seal. 

It appears therefore that infants are human beings(a), are 
sinful creatures(Z>), maybe "born again" — "of the Spir- 

*2 Sam. 12: 23. | John 3: 3. 5. JJer. 1: 5, Luke 1: 15, 1 Sam. 1: 24 and 2: 18, 2 Tim. 
3: 15. $Gen. 9: 9 and 17: 7-14, Dent. 5: 2. 3. ||See Ex. 19: 2-20 and 20: 1-17, compa- 
red with Deut. 5: 2-22. (a) § 1. (b) § 2. 



Ch. 4, § 5.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 267 

it"(a), and are capable of being in covenant with God. To 
them therefore, in common with adults, belongs whatever is 
essential to a subject of baptism(&). 

It will scarcely be affirmed, even by the exclusives, that, 
for an unbelieving, unconverted enemy of God, like Simon 
the sorcerer(c), to profess to be a true christian, is what ren- 
ders his baptism valid. For an unbeliever, while he remains 
such, to profess to believe in Christ, is to be guilty of a most 
solemn falsehood. The word of God does not teach that tel- 
ling a lie, qualifies a man for baptism, or renders that ordi- 
nance valid to him, which would otherwise be invalid. The 
validity of Divine ordinances cannot depend on the wicked- 
ness of those who receive them. 

To be interested in God's covenant and thereby entitled to 
its seal, personal consent in every case, is not necessary. 
God himself has determined this point. Into covenant with 
himself he received infants who, from their age, were inca- 
pable of giving or withholding their personal consent.* He 
made them a portion of one party in this covenant. The 
other was composed of adults. It is manifest therefore that, 
from the fact that infants have been received into covenant 
with God, personal consent is not in all cases necessary to 
enjoy an interest in that covenant into which he has entered 
with his visible church. 

5. Infants are guilty of nothing which can exclude them 
from the covenant or render their baptism invalid. No in- 
fant is or can be guilty of any open immorality. No one of 
them can therefore be excluded by proper ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline from the covenant. No infant can be as wicked as 
Simon the sorcerer was. With all the guilt of years resting 
on his soul, he " was baptized. 7 ' He came to receive the 
ordinance with " a lie in his right hand ;" and notwithstand- 
ing this, he, as we are positively told, "was baptized."! 
Simon was a practical villain, up to, and during the time of 
his baptism, as well as afterwards ; and yet his baptism was 
valid. An infant free from all his open immoralities, cer- 
tainly cannot be, merely on account of its infancy, a less fit 
subject to receive the holy ordinance of baptism than Simon 
was. 

(a.) $ 3. (b) See Ch. 2, $ 4. (c) Ch. 2, $ 1, par. 1-6. *See Gen. 17: 1-U. tActs 
8: 13, Isa. 44: 20: 



268 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. II. 

6. God does not forbid the baptism of infants. In no pas- 
sage of scripture is it said that infants may not, or shall not 
be baptized. Nor does the word of God contain the least in- 
timation of any such prohibition ever being given. Infants 
who are themselves proper subjects of baptism(a), are not 
therefore rendered unfit to receive that holy ordinance by 
any positive enactment. Infants then are, and will always 
remain, proper subjects of baptism ; for God will not change 
their nature, nor his word in relation to them. If it had 
been his intention to have excluded them, in New Testa- 
ment times, from the seal of the covenant, he would have 
expressed this his intention in some form of words. But as 
he has not, in any portion of the scriptures stated or even 
intimated in any mode of expression, that infants were to be 
or have been excluded from the seal of the covenant entered 
into with his visible people, it is certain that he did not. in- 
tend to exclude them from its use. God had commanded the 
seal to be applied to them. To say nothing further on the 
subject was to leave the existing command in full force. 
Since therefore God has commanded the seal of the covenant 
to be applied to infants ; and since, in New Testament times 
this seal is baptism; the fact that he has not forbidden them 
to receive baptism, the New Testament seal of the covenant, 
is undeniable evidence that the former command requiring 
them to receive this seal, remains unrepealed — is yet in full 
force. To secure to infants the New Testament seal of the 
covenant, it was not necessary to repeat the former com- 
mand. To leave it unrepealed, or not to forbid them to be 
baptized is all that was really necessary in their case. But 
God has not only left the former command in full force; but 
he has repeated it in almost every conceivable mode of ex- 
pression^). 

Infants are not proper communicants at the Lord's table. 
To them belongs every thing essential to subjects of bap- 
tism^). But to them does not belong what is essential to a 
communicant. ' They are not capable of performing the ex- 
ternal acts which are required of, and performed by, every 
one who partakes of the symbols of the broken body and of 
the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is said to all 

(u) $ 4, P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1, par. 13, P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1-9. (b) See § 1-4. 



Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. • 269 

communicants, whether worthy or unworthy; "take, eat;" — 
44 take this and divide it among yourselves;" — " drink ye 
all of it." These directions are given to all communicants. 
By them all, these external actions are all performed. In- 
fants cannot perform these actions. They therefore cannot 
commune at the Lord's table. Moreover, Jesus Christ says 
to each communicant at his table ; " this do in remembrance 
of me." Each communicant, whether a true believer or not, 
externally complies with this direction. Those who ap- 
proach the Lord's table, declare externally by this action 
that they have examined themselves; and that they discern 
the Saviour's body.* Infants are, from their age, incapable 
of performing any one of the acts which all communicants 
externally perform. While therefore infants may be bap- 
tized ; because, in receiving this ordinance, the subject is al- 
ways passive ; they are not proper communicants, because 
in receiving the Lord's supper, all who partake are active. 

PART THIRD. 

DIVINE AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER I. 

CHURCH MEMBERS ARE OR OUGHT TO BE BAPTIZED. 

1. Members of the visible church in New Testament times 
are, or ought to be baptized. This position is admitted by all 
who believe that baptism with water is an ordinance to be 
observed in the christian church. Each church member is 
in visible covenant with God. The fact that he is a church 
member proves this. But the person who is in covenant, 
or who, in other words, is a church member, has a right to the 
seal of the covenant. This, in New Testament times, is 
baptism(a). Every church member therefore who is not 
baptized, is entitled to this ordinance. Those who say that 
baptism is the door through which persons must pass to enter 
the church, must admit that all who are in it, have been bap- 
tized. Those who maintain that persons first enter into the 
church by being born in covenant or by entering it after- 
wards, must maintain that those who are in covenant ought 
to receive its seal, if it has not been applied to them. But 

*Mat. 2G: -26. 27, Mark 14: 22. 23, t.uke 22: 17. 19, 1 Cor. 11: 24. 25. 28. 29. (a) See 
P. i, Ch.3, 5 6. 8. 



270 . BIBLE BAPTISM. [B. IV, P. HI. 

M this seal in New Testament times, is baptism(a); sothere- 
ZrTeZyZmbev of the christian church has been or ought 

He expressly says of certain persons ; « of such is the km 5 
Horn of heaven :»— " of such is the kingdom of God. Ihs 
dom ot hea 2 n e " ' th kins dom of God on earth or his visible 

Iw"such is the kingdom of God," must form at least a 
portion of the members o! that kingdom Those concerning 
whom to declaration is made by the blessed Jesus are/o«r 
^Tcalled « little children ;" they are ^^^J, ^ 
children " and once thev are denominated lnlants. u 
the e same persons whoform a part, if not a P"™??£" 
of his khiedom or visible church on earth, it is said ; Jesus 
"took tnem u„ in his arms, put his hands upon them ano 
blessed theni." These "little children, "-' young chiL- 
Ue^d_the , whom Jesus t00k -up in his arms'' com 

sUm te a portion of God's kingdom or visible church on .earth J 
TWs our Savior positively teaches. But as these infants, in 
New Testament Lies, were members of his church on earth; 
„ Aey were entitled to the ordinance of christian baptism; 
for'SlYsuoh members either have been or have a rig to be 
i *;~*Afr^ The language which the Holy fepirit nere 
^ To dSoteT^nfants?' >s 8 as strong and pointed as can be 
used on Ibis subject. That infants form a portion of Gods 
k ntdom on earth, is therefore as certain as the language nf 
i, smration can make the fact; and it is equally certain to 
nCh members, they may have been, ought to ha^e 

fanJ^Xu^. Ihis apostle in addressing £, Ga- 
latians, calls them "brethren" and mentions th.se to w on 

W Se B. I, P. iv. Ch. 1, 5 H, Seeaho P. J. CI, 3, WaWfjii* 
ft.) See $ 1. 



Ch. 1, § 4.J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 271 

he wrote as " churches." But some of the members of these 
" churches," some of these " brethren," he expressly calls 
" little children."* A part of these church members then 
were " little childi-en." The original word (<rsxvia) here 
translated " little children," is very pointed in its significa- 
tion. It is derived from another Greek word (tsxvov) which 
denotes a child and sometimes one unborn.f It is a diminu- 
tive, and therefore denotes very "little children." Such 
language does the holy Spirit use in addressing some of the 
members of the " churches" in Galatia." These "little chil- 
dren" were singled out and specially mentioned by the Spi- 
rit of God as members of the Galatian churches. These in- 
deed are the only class of persons thus particularly noticed 
in these churches. But as these " little children" were cer- 
tainly members of the- churches in Galatia, they were either 
baptized or had. a right to that ordinance. To say that " lit- 
tle children" are members of the visible church of Christ, is 
to use most positive language in favor of infant baptism. Be- 
sides, these " little children" are publicly recognized as 
church members ; they must therefore have been actually 
baptized; because this public recognition of church member- 
ship takes place neither before nor after, but in the very act 
of receiving the ordinance of baptism. Persons commune 
at the Lord's table, not to make them church members, but 
because the3^ are such before they receive the holy supper(a). 
4. The Holy Spirit, by John, teaches that infants are to 
be baptized. In an epistle addressed to the churches in gen- 
eral, "little children" are mentioned as members no less 
than nine times{b).% " Young men" and " fathers" are also 
specially mentioned as church members. As a body, they 
are collectively addressed as " beloved" and " brethren. "§ 
In this epistle addressed to the churches in general, " little 
children" are much more frequently named than any other 
class of members. These " little children," or as the origi- 
nal word (rsxviot) indicates, these very " little children," are 
publicly recognized as members of the visible churches to 
whom John addressed his first general epistle. By being 
thus publicly recognized as church members, their baptism 

*Gal. 1: 2. 11 and 3: 15 and 4: 12. 19 and 5: 11. 13. fSee Gal. 4: 19 in Greek, see 
also Greek Lexicons, (a) P. i, Ch. 3, § 10. (b) See P. i, Ch. 3, § 8. JSee 1 John 2: 
1. 12. 13. 18. 28 and 3: 7. 18 and 4; 4 and 5: 21. §1 John 2: 13. 14 and 3: 2. 13 and 4: 1. 7< 
11. 



272 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

is as certainly and as definitely taught, as it could have been 
in any other form of words. Those " little children" whom 
John addresses as publicly recognized church members, he 
addresses as baptized persons ; because all such church mem- 
bers, must have been baptized at the time this public recog- 
nition first took place. The holy Spirit, by John, there- 
fore, teaches very pointedly that infants were baptized by 
Divine authority. 

5. Infants were baptized in the Red Sea. This the Spirit 
of God very pointedly teaches. Speaking of the whole na- 
tion of Israel who came out of Egypt, God declares ; they 
" were all baptized — in the cloud and in the sea.' 7 * The 
Israelites who left Egypt are called the " fathers" of the 
Jews who lived in the days of the apostle Paul ; because 
they were their ancestors, not because of their age when 
they left the land of their captivity. When Israel left their 
" house of bondage," they brought with them their " young," 
their "sons" and "daughters," their " little ones," their 
"children," those who "had no knowledge between good 
and evil."f With these the " covenant" was made at "Ho- 
reb."J These " did all eat the same spiritual meat." They 
drank "the same spiritual drink," — from that "spiritual 
Rock" which " followed them, and that Rock was Christ." 
Those therefore who drank from Christ, the spiritual Rock, 
were not the rebels that lusted " after evil things," were 
" idolators," were guilty of "fornication," — "tempted" 
Christ and " murmured." Those then who are more par- 
ticularly mentioned as the persons who left Egypt and were 
baptized " in the cloud and in the sea," are such as were at 
that time the "sons" and "daughters," the " little ones," 
the children who " had no knowledge between good and 
evil."§ Certainly these " little ones" are not excluded from 
among those who are said to have been baptized. It is there- 
fore absolutely certain that these " children" who then had 
" no knowledge between good and evil" were baptized 
among the rest. The Spirit of God therefore in this account, 
teaches positively that infants were baptized. But as " all 
these things happened unto them" for " examples" to the 
New Testament church, || so now this church, by its minis- 

*1 Cor. 10: 1. 2. |Ex. 10: 9. 10. 24 and 12: 37, Num. 14: 31. 33, Deut. 1: 39. tDeut 
5:2.3. ^See 1 Cot. 10: 3. 4. 6-10. ||1 Cor. 10: 6. 11. 



Ch. 1, § 6, 7.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 273 

try, in order to imitate the example here proposed for its im- 
itation, must baptize infants. 

6. Ancient Prophets predicted that infants, in New Tes- 
tament times, are to be baptized. They clearly point out the 
fact that infants are to be members of the christian church. 
On this subject, they use such language as this ; " a little 
child shall lead' 7 the lion and the leopard ; — "the sucking 
child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child 
shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den ;" — the Messiah 
" shall gather the lambs with his arm and carry them in his 
bosom;"- — " the Gentiles — shall bring thy sons in their arms 
and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders ;" — 
" a little one shall become a thousand and a small one a 
strong nation ;" — " my people — mine elect — are the seed 
of the blessed of the Lord and their offspring with them ;" — 
"I will gather all nations — and they shall — see my glo- 
ry;" — "the children of thy servants shall continue and 
their seed shall be established before thee ;" — " their children 
— shall be as aforetime."* The prophets in predicting the 
spiritual prosperity of the church in New Testament times, 
use many expressions similar to those here quoted. This 
prophetic language clearly teaches that " little children," — 
** sucking" children, " weaned" children, such "lambs" and 
" sons" as were to be carried in the " arms," the " offspring" 
of his people, their " seed," the " nations" which always 
and necessarily include infants, should have a standing in 
the christian church. But, as all church members in New 
Testament times have been or have a right to be baptized ; 
so when the church membership of infants is predicted, their 
baptism is necessarily included. Whenever therefore in- 
fants as church members in New Testament times, are bap- 
tized ; these and similar predictions are receiving their ful- 
fillment. 

7. Every passage in the New Testament, which mentions 
children as living under the christian dispensation, teaches 
that infants are to be baptized. These passages all inculcate 
infant church membership, and therefore teach infant bap- 
tism ; for all church members are baptized or ought to be(a). 
Certain words are, in the New Testament, used to denote 

*Isa. 11: 6. 8 and 40: 11 and 49: 22 and 6C: 22 and 65: 22. 23 and 66: 18, Ps. 102: 28, 
Jen 30: 20. fa,) See $ 1. 
18 



274 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

church members. To apply one of these words or more to 
an individual, is to call him a member of the visible church 
in New Testament times. The words which are descrip- 
tive of church membership, are " saints' 7 or holy ones, 
" believers,"—" brethren,"--" faithful, 7 '— " sanctified," &c. 
The "saints 77 at Rome, the "saints 77 at Corinth, the "saints 77 
in Achaia, the " saints 77 at Ephesus, the "saints" at Philip- 
pi, the "saints' 7 at Colosse, the " saints" at Jerusalem, &c, 
denote the church members in those places.* These saints 
are also called " believers,"— "brethren," — "faithful," — 
" sanctified, 7 ' &c. As these words are used in relation to 
the persons to whom the New Testament epistles were writ- 
ten, so they must have been applicable to each of them or at 
least to each class of persons addressed. But all the epis- 
tles in. the New Testament were addressed either to chris- 
tian churches or to individual believers. When therefore 
" little children" or infants are addressed or mentioned as 
part of those to whom the epistles were written, they are 
addressed as church members ; for what had the apostles "to 
do to judge 77 those who were " without 77 the pale of the 
church?! An inspired man would not address an epistle to 
a class of persons as chui'ch members when some of them 
were not such. When therefore an epistle addressed to a 
church by an apostle, mentions a particular class of persons 
as a part of those to whom it was written, that class must 
have beea church members ; for all to whom each of the 
epistles in the New Testament, was addressed, were such- 
When therefore children or " little children" are addressed 
in any one epistle or more ; they are thus recognized as 
members of the visible church. But as members of trie vis- 
ible church in New Testament times, they were baptized or 
had a right to the ordinance of baptism(a). Some word 
which indicates church membership, is invariably used of 
<; little children 77 or " infants 77 whenever they are mention- 
ed as living in New Testament times. A few instances of 
infant church membership, may here be noticed. (1.) 
Church members are called saints or holy ones(b). Infants 
are called " holy, 77 therefore infants are church members ; 

*See Rom. 1: 7 and 15: 25, 1 Cor. 1: 2 and IB: 1, 2 Cor. 1: 1 and 8: 4 and 9: 1, Eph. 1 
1, Phil, 1: 1, Col. 1: 2. fl Cor. 5: 12. (a)See § 1. (b)The term saint denotes a ho- 
ly one. 



Ch. 1, § ?,] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 275- 

beeause the word holy which indicates church membership, 
is applied to them. It is said to parents, only one of whom 
is a believer ; " your children — are — holy."* No true 
christian can ever imagine that the word " holy" in this pas- 
sage of God's word, denotes " converted. 77 This would be 
to give the term a very unusual signification. Besides, no 
person who has any experimental knowledge of the work of 
the spirit on his own soul, can even for a moment suppose, 
that because one of the parents of a child is a believer, there- 
fore the child is born of the spirit or is truly converted. But 
it may with much propriety be said that the children of such 
parents are federally "holy,' 7 or in other words, that they 
are in covenant with God. The word " holy' 7 is frequently 
used in the scriptures to express this covenant relation. 
The Jews, because they were in covenant, are called a "ho- 
ly people ; 77 professing christians, because they are in cov- 
enant, are called a " holy nation 77 and also " saints' 7 or holy 
onesf(a). Whoever therefore is in visible covenant with 
God, is holy by profession and by covenant engagement. 
When infants therefore are called holy, their church mem- 
bership is definitely recognized. (2.) Church members are 
called faithful, so also are children ; therefore children are 
church members. Timotheus — was " faithful ; 77 Paul" ob- 
tained mercy — to be faithful ; 77 church members at Ephe- 
sus were " faithful. ' 7 | These and similar declarations prove 
that " faithful 7 ' was a distinguishing appellation given to 
church members in apostolic times. But this word " faith- 
ful, 77 which describes a church member is applied to infants. 
A bishop 7 s or pastor 7 s children must be "faithful. 77 That 
these children were small, is evident from the fact that they 
are called children. To designate them, a word is used 
which in its ordinary acceptation, indicates very young per- 
sons. That they were young is manifest from the direction 
given to. the father to have them " in subjection.' 7 This di- 
rection shows that they were so young as to be under the 

*1 Cor. 7: 14. tDeut. 7: 6 and 14: 2. 21 and 26: 19, 1 Pet. 2: 9, Eph. 1: 1 in Greek- 

(a) The fancy that the word " holy" in 1 Cor. 7: 11 signifies legitimate shows too 
clearly the ign .ranee or wickedness of those who adopt it, to deserve a passing notice. 
It cannot deceive any one who has any knowledge of the meaning of words. It is 
adopted, not because it is tielieved ; but because the force of God's troth bears very 
heavily on a part of their favorite system. In this way, they hope to satisfy them- 
selves that they believe God's word, while they reject infant baptism. %\ Cor. 4: 17 
and 7: 25, Eph. 1: 1. 



276 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

special direction of the father. If they had been adults or 
even advanced in childhood, the direction would have been 
given to them. They would have been commanded to 
" obey 7 ' their " parents in the Lord."* But here the paro- 
chial bishop is required to have " his children in subjection." 
These little children must be — " faithful." They must there- 
fore be church members ; because church members and they 
only, are called faithful. A man is unfit to be a parochial 
bishop whose children are not " faithful," or are not public- 
ly recognized as church members. (3.) Church members 
are said to be "sanctified ;"t so are infants ; therefore in- 
fants who are thus externally sanctified are visible church 
members. These are only a specimen of the passages which 
mention infants as church members in New Testament times, 
and which therefore prove that they were or ought to have 
been baptized. The evidence that infants were and are 
church members both in Old and New Testament times, is 
most pointed and conclusive(a); and that all church mem- 
bers in New Testament times are or ought to be baptized, 
is as certain as the language of inspiration can make any 
position(J). From the evidence here presented, it is unde- 
niably certain therefore that infants, by Divine authority, 
are to be baptized. 

CHAPTER II. 

DEFINITE SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF INFANT 
BAPTISM. 

1. The Abrahamic covenant includes infant baptism. 
This covenant was made about 1900 years before the birth 
of Christ, and more than 400 years before the law was giv- 
en to Moses on Mount Sinai. J A number of particulars in 
this covenant claim special attention. (I.) The parties in 
this covenant are God and professed believers with their in- 
fant children.^ These parties were suitable. God was one 
of them. The other, composed of adults and infants, was 
such as pleased him. (2.) A portion of one of the parties 
in this covenant, was not the whole party. One portion of 
one party in it was composed of adults; the other portion 

*Tit. 1: 0, 1 Tim. 3: 4, Eph. 6: 1. |1 Cor. 1: 2, Jcr. 1: 5 compared with Heb. 2: 11 
and 10: 14. (a) See P. i, Ch. 3, § 8. (b) See $ 1. tSee Ex. 12: 40. 41 and 19: 11 and 
20: 3-17, Gal. 3: 17. §See Cen. 17: 7. 12. 14. 



Ch. 2, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 277 

was composed of infants. Infants alone or adults alone did 
not compose this party in the covenant. Both united, form- 
ed the party. If therefore Abram had excluded his infant 
seed from being a portion of the party in the covenant ; he 
would have violated its provisions, as truly as if he had ex- 
cluded adults. (3.) This covenant was il everlasting. 77 * It 
will therefore endure as long as either the literal or spiritual 
seed of Abram shall exist. (4.) Its promise is two-fold. 
It embraces spiritual blessings. This appears from the fol- 
lowing language ; " I will be a God unto thee and to thy 
seed after thee; 7 ' — " I will be their God.". This promise 
includes all spiritual blessings. When God is our God ; in 
him we possess, either actually or in reversion, every bles- 
sing.f Its spiritual blessings belong to 'all who enjoy the 
special grace of the covenant. It also embraces temporal 
blessings(a). In it God promised Abram a numerous seed, 
both natural and spiritual. To many of his natural seed 
but not to them all, God promised the actual possession of 
the land of Canaan on earth ; and to the whole of his spir- 
itual seed, the Canaan of rest above for an " everlasting pos- 
session.";!: The earthly Canaan was to be theirs while the 
earth remained ; and the heavenly Canaan was to belong 
to the spiritual seed while heaven remains. The earthly 
Canaan has been conquered seventeen times(5). But God 
has never given to any people except to the descendants of 
Abram through Isaac, a title to that land. He made a grant 
of it to Abram and to this portion of his descendants. He 
gave it to them. All others were and are usurpers. Nor 
will he give the heavenly Canaan to any except to those 
who possess the same kind of " faith" which Abram had. 
(5.) Of those in covenant, special duties are required. God 
said to Abram ; " walk before me and be thou perfect ;" — ■ 

*Gen. 17: 7. 13. 19. Ps. 105: 10. fGen. 17: 7. S, Rom. 4: 16, Gal. 3: 29. 

(a) Circumcision did not give to a descendant of Abram, a right to the land of CanaaD. 
Most of the Israelites who left t'sypt perished in the wilderness. These though cir- 
cumcised did not enter Canaan. Those who died in Egypt from the days of Jacob till 
Moses Was eighty years old, did not enter the promised land. The ten tribes were 
scattered among the nations for their sin. For the same cause, Judah and Benjamin 
suffered captivity for 70 years in Babylon. And the whole nation of the Jews are now 
and have been for more than 1700 years " aliens from" the land of Palestine. But not- 
withstanding all this, they have invariably practiced the rite of circumcision. If, to 
the mere external performance of this rite, God had annexed the promise of the land 
of Canaan, thev would not have been expelled from it even as a punishment for their 
gins. JGen. 17": 2. 4-§. 8, Gal. 3: 16. 29. f^See Ch - M<J S- voh S > P* 74 ' 



278 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

" thou shalt keep my covenant, — thou and thy seed after 
thee. 75 Of him who neglects to perform these duties, he says; 
*' he hath broken my covenant."* (0.) The seal of this cov- 
enant must be applied to adults and to infants. The com- 
mand expressly required that both should be circumcised; and 
in rendering obedience to this direction, both were circum- 
cised. Abram was circumcised when he was M ninety years 
old and nine," Ishmael when he was " thirteen" and Isaac 
when he was " eight days" old. Infants were expressly re- 
quired to receive this " seal of the righteousness of — faith. "f 
This faith Abram had before he was circumcised. Isaac 
and Jacob after they received this " token of the covenant," 
and there is no evidence to prove that Ishmael whose "hand" 
was " against every man,''' or Esau the " profane" — M for- 
nicator," ever received true faith. J Nor had these last or 
their posterity any inheritance in the land of Canaan. To 
this, their circumcision did not entitle them. (7.) The seal 
confirms the promise made in the covenant. To do this is the 
very nature of a seal. This promise is two-fold. It embra- 
ces both temporal and spiritual blessings. The seal con- 
firms whatever is promised in this covenant. (8.) The pro- 
mise of this covenant belongs to the church in New Testament 
times. The promise, being a part of the covenant, is, like 
that, " everlasting." It therefore extends through time into 
eternity. This "promise is sure to all the seed ; not to that 
only which is of the law but to that also which is of the faith 
of Abraham who is the father of us all." A part of what 
was. promised in this covenant, was that Abram was to be 
the " father of many nations." This was to be specially 
fulfilled in those who, in New Testament times, were to en- 
joy his u faith." This promise is made to all the children 
of Abraham. But " they which are of faith, the same are 
the children of faithful Abraham ;" those who are "of faith 
are blessed with faithful Abraham ;" and " the blessing of 
Abraham," one principle part of which was the promise of 
the covenant, comes "on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." 
Moreover the promises were made " to Abraham and his 
seed — which is Christ," as the head and representative of his 
people. The promise of this " covenant — was confirmed 

*Gen. 17: 1. 9. 14, Rom. 4: 12. 13. 18. fSee GeD. 17: 10-13. 24, 25 and 21: 4, Bom. 
4; 11, tGen. 16: 12, Heb. 12: 16. 



Ch. 2, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 27B 

of God in Christ." Those who belong to Christ are 
44 Abraham's seed according to the promise."* These and 
similar passages show most conclusively that the promise 
of the Abrahamic covenant extends to christians in New 
Testament times. Besides, christians are said to be 4 ' the 
children of promise" as Isaac was ; and " Jesus Christ"-^- 
confirmed " the promises made unto the fathers. "f Here 
then the promise of this covenant made with Abram, is, 
in a great variety of expressions, mentioned as belonging 
to New Testament christians. Abram is called the father 
of all believers, because he was their progenitor in this cov- 
enant. On the day of Pentecost, the promise of this cov- 
enant was urged upon the Jews as a reason why they should 
44 repent and be baptized." To them the Spirit of God, by 
Peter, said ; " the promise is unto you and to your chil- 
dren." They are also called "the children of the covenant — 
made with — Abraham. "J That the promise proposed to them 
and to their children, was that of the Abrahamic covenant, 
is manifest from the fact that the language was addressed to 
believing parents and to their children, the very persons 
who were interested in the promise of that covenant. It 
was predicted by the prophet that, in the beginning of the 
New Testament dispensation of the church, persons would 
be empowered to work miracles, speak with tongues and 
prophecy. This prediction was fulfilled when the apostles 
were supernaturally qualified to speak sixteen or seventeen 
different languages or dialects, and were " filled with the 
Holy Ghost. "§ It is not therefore to be fulfilled in every 
true believer. As all true believers and their children do 
not possess these miraculous powers, it is certain that this 
prophecy is not the promise which God, by his servant, pro- 
poses to them and their children. But, as all who are in 
Christ are "Abraham's seed and heirs according to the pro- 
mise;" so this promise must belong to them.|| In New 
Testament times, therefore, the promise of the Abrahamic 
covenant belongs to believers and to their children. As 
the seal confirms the promise of the covenant, so it must 
belong, in some form, to all to whom the promise is made. 
This is made to believers and their children ; the seal of 

*Rom. 4: 14. 16. 18-24, Gal. 3: 7-9. 14. 16. 17. 29. tGal. 4: 28, Rom. 15: 8. JActj 
9i 38, 39 and 3: 25. $See Joel 2; 28-31, Acts 2; 1. 4. 9-21. ||Gal. 3; 29, 



280 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

the covenant must therefore be applied to both these classes 
of persons. All who are " Christ's/ 7 whether infants or 
adults, are '* heirs according to the promise" of the Abra- 
hamic covenant. While therefore Christ has a people on 
earth, so long will this promise be theirs. (9.) The seal of 
the covenant may be changed. If it is changed, the standing 
of the parties in the covenant, their privileges, or its pro- 
mise, cannot thereby be effected. Different materials may 
be used as a seal. Wax, or a wafer, or a mere mark may 
be employed to seal an instrument which requires to be thus 
confirmed. One seal may be removed and another used to 
supply its place. When this is done, the last as truly con- 
firms the promise as the first. By changing the seal, the 
rights of the parties in the covenant, are not destroyed. By 
this act, their covenant privileges and obligations are neith- 
er altered nor diminished. It does not exclude either party 
from the covenant. Much less can this act divide one of the 
parties and exclude one portion of it from covenant privile- 
ges, while the other portion is retained and allowed to en- 
joy them all. Adults and infants together, constitute one 
party in this covenant. When infants are excluded, then 
one portion of this party is deprived of its privileges ; then 
the covenant of God is rejected. (10.) Circumcision is not 
now, and never was, since the resurrection of Christ, the seal 
of this covenant. This was its seal in Old, not in New Tes- 
tament times. Soon after the resurrection of Christ, " cer- 
tain men — taught the brethren" that they ought to " be cir- 
cumcised." But men inspired by the holy Spirit " gave no 
such commandment."* Those heathen converts who were 
baptized brethren, were not to be circumcised. To the Jews 
circumcision was entirely unavailing — was " nothing" in 
New Testament times.f Once it was a " seal of the righ- 
teousness of — faith," though after Christ's resurrection it 
was " nothing." From and after that time, the Jew as well 
as the Gentile must view circumcision as no longer the seal 
of the covenant which God had entered into with his profes- 
sing people. (11.) Baptism is now and always has been, since 
the resurrection of Christ, the seal of this covenant. It is 
the only seal of membership in New Testament times. Per- 

* Acts 15: 1. 24. 28. fSee 1 Cor. 7: 19, Gal. 5: 6 and 6: 15. 



Ch. 2. § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 281 

sons partake of the holy supper because they are members 
of the church, not to bring them into its pale. A visible 
church is composed of persons who are visibly in covenant 
with God(a). Where any branch of this church exists, 
there are persons, by profession, in covenant with God. A 
covenant is a solemn agreement, the promise of which is 
confirmed by a seal. A church therefore supposes a cov- 
enant, and a covenant supposes a seal. In New Testament 
times, there is a church whose members are in visible cov- 
enant with God. This covenant must have a seal by which 
each person in it is publicly recognized as being by profes- 
sion on the Lord's side. This seal, in some form, must be 
as permanent as the covenant is ; because it, as a part of 
the agreement, confirms the promise. It has been or ought 
to be, applied to every person in the covenant. Baptism 
is that which every church member in New Testament 
times, has received or to which he is entitled. It is that 
which remains constantly with him and by which he is pub- 
licly recognized as being in fellowship with the church(&). 
When either Jews or Gentiles wished to enter the visible 
church in New Testament times, they were directed to be 
" baptized," — or desired to be " baptized, 7 ' — or were "bap- 
tized."* It is manifest therefore that baptism is the seal of 
membership during the New Testament dispensation of the 
covenant(c). Besides, as circumcision is now " nothing ;" 
baptism must now be the seal of the covenant or it has none; 
and if there is no seal, then there is no ratified covenant 
and therefore no church. But since there is a visible church, 
there must be a covenant whose promise is confirmed by a 
seal ; and that, as we have no other seal of visible church 
membership in New Testament times, must be baptism 
with water. (12.) Baptism is New Testament circumcision. 
To the Collossians who were about to add the worship of 
angels and circumcision, to their religious service, the Spirit 
of God, by the apostle, says ; " Ye are circumcised with 
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body 
of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried 
with him in baptism." Moreover, christians are said to be 
"the circumcision" who "worship God in the Spirit."f 

(a) See P. i, Ch. 3. §2. fW See P. i, Ch. 3, $ 10. *Acts 2: 3S. 41 and 8: 12. 36. 3» 
and 10: 47. 48 and 16: 15. 33. (c) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 11. |Col. 2: 11. 12, see also 
Gen. 17: 10. 12. 14 and 21: 4, Phil. 3: 3. 



282 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

Baptized christians are the circumcision in New Testament 
times ; therefore baptism must be New Testament circum- 
cision. Besides, the circumcision of Christ, or christian 
circumcision and baptism are used to denote the same spirit- 
ual blessings. But if spiritual baptism is our only spiritual 
circumcision, then literal baptism must be our only literal 
circumcision. Baptism therefore is New Testament cir- 
cumcision. Moreover, all who practice baptism with water, 
admit by their actions that this ordinance occupies the pl"ace 
of circumcision. These all use baptism, not circumcision, 
as the ordinance by which persons are or ought to be pub- 
licly recognized as members of the visible church. They 
therefore all practically admit that baptism has taken the 
place of circumcision as the initiatory rite in the New Tes- 
tament church. Moreover, it may be remarked here that 
Justin Martyr who was a disciple of the apostles and wrote 
about the year 139, less than 40 years after the death of 
John the Divine, states in relation to this subject ; " We 
Gentile christians — have not received — circumcision accord- 
ing to the flesh, but that — which is spiritual. 7 ' " Moreover 
we have received this circumcision in baptism 77 (a). In the 
year 163 he was beheaded for being a christian. Epipha- 
nius was pastor of a church in the island of Cyprus. He 
was born in the year 310, and died in 403. He says; M the 
law had circumcision in the flesh — till the great circumci- 
sion came, that is, baptism.' 7 An apostle informs us that 
baptism is New Testament circumcision. Early christian 
writers teach the same truth. To resist or turn aside from 
such testimony is not a mark of spiritual wisdom. (13.) In- 
fants have never been excluded from the covenant ; nor has 
the command been revoked which requires its seal to be appli- 
ed to them. God has expressly included them in this cov- 
enant as a portion of one of its parties. His positive com- 
mand required its seal to be applied to them. He has not 
excluded them from the covenant, nor revoked this command. 
Adults and infants at the first, constituted one of the parties 
in this covenant. They constitute that party yet ; for God 
has not excluded either infants or adults from the covenant. 
He has not authorized or required either to dispense with 

(a) See Dia. with Tryphone. 



Ch. 2, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 283 

the use of its seal. God requires the seal of his covenant 
to be applied to infants. Who then dare step forward, and, 
by assuming the prerogative of undoing what he has done, 
refuse or neglect to apply it to them % This seal in New 
Testament times is baptism. Adults receive it, because God 
has not excluded them from the covenant. Infants ought to 
receive it, because Divine wisdom has not excluded them. 
Infants and adults together constitute one party in the cov- 
enant. Whatever therefore is a proper covenant seal for 
adults, is a proper covenant seal for infants. No being but 
God has a right to exclude either from its seal. He has 
excluded neither ; therefore neither can be excluded except 
by direct rebellion against God. Those who do so, not only 
assume the Divine prerogative of saying who shall, and who 
shall not, be received into covenant with God ; but they re- 
ject those whom God has received and has not rejected. 
Since therefore God requires the seal of his covenant, which 
in New Testament times is baptism, to be applied to infants; 
those who baptize them have God's positive command for 
doing so. A positive command which God has given and 
which he has never repealed, is sufficient authority for his 
obedient children. (14.) The Old and New Testament 
church is identically the same. Our Saviour positively de- 
clared to the Jews that "the kingdom of God" should " be 
taken from" them "and given to" the Gentiles.* This 
" kingdom of God" or the visible church, was actually.taken 
from them. This same "kingdom" was given to the Gen- 
tile nations. What was given to the Gentiles, was the very 
same which was taken from the Jews. The spirit of God 
by the apostle, also teaches very positively that the Old and 
New Testament church is identically the same. The Jew- 
ish church is called a " good olive-tree." The Gentiles are 
called an " olive-tree which is wild by nature." Gentile 
believers are represented as branches "cut out of" this wild 
" olive-tree." Those branches taken from the wild olive- 
tree, are said to be ''grafted" into the "good olive-tree." 
Because of unbelief, some of the branches are represented 
as "broken" or "cut off" from the " good olive-tree," and 
the branches taken from the wild "olive-tree," are said to 



284 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

be grafted into the "good olive-tree." Into this same "good 
olive-tree" the Jewish branches which were "cut off' 7 be- 
cause of unbelief, shall hereafter be grafted. It is evident 
from this account of the "olive-tree," that some branches 
were cut off and others grafted in, so that they partook "of 
the root and fatness of the olive-tree." But the tree was 
identically the same before and after the branches were bro- 
ken off and others grafted in. The Jewish church, in visi- 
ble covenant with God, was the "good olive-tree." Because 
of unbelief its infected branches were cut off. The graft- 
ed branches were Gentile believers added to it after the re- 
surrection of Christ. Adding Gentile believers to the Jew- 
ish church, did not, could not change its identity, any more 
than grafting branches into a tree can change its identity, so 
as to make it a different tree. Grafting branches into a tree 
does not tear it up by the roots. The "good olive-tree" 
therefore, was not destroyed, but rendered more useful, by 
having its unfruitful, withered and rotten branches cut off 
and other more valuable ones grafted into the tree in their 
room(a). To cut off from a church improper members, and 
receive into fellowship others who give evidence of true pi- 
ety, is not disorganizing or destroying the church. It is on- 
ly one way of promoting its best interests.* (15.) The Old 
Testament church, though it is identically the same with the 
New, yet differs from it in some points. But these points of 
difference do not exclude infants from the seal of the cov- 
enant. The Old Testament dispensation of the church, dif- 
fers from that of the New in several points. The one ex- 
tended to the Jewish nation only ; the other extends to all 
nations. During the one, christians had only the Old Tes- 
tament revelation ; during the other, they have both the old 
and the New. The Old Testament saint looked forward to 
a Saviour to come ; the New Testament saint looks back to 
a Saviour as having already come. During the Old Testa- 
ment dispensation, circumcision and the passover were ex- 
ternal ordinances; and during the New, baptism and the 
Lord's supper seal the covenant and confirm other blessings. 
While the one continued the ceremonial law must be obser- 
ved ; during the other, the worshipper is freed from this 

(a) See P. i, Ch. 3, $ 5. *See Rom. 11: 13-26. 



Ch. 2, § 2.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 285 

yoke of bondage. But these or other differences between the 
two dispensations of the covenant, do not, in New Testament 
times, deprive the parties of their rights and privileges, nor 
excuse them from their covenant obligations. 

This covenant then which, in the person of Abraham, 
God entered into with all believers and their seed, is now in 
full force.* Those who have a standing in it, may look to 
God for covenant blessings, and plead covenant promises. 
He has not changed this covenant. He has not excluded in- 
fants from its advantages. He has not revoked that com- 
mand which requires its seal to be applied to them. The 
visible church, both in Old and New Testament times, is es- 
sentially one. Infants and adults composed its members at its 
first organization. They do so still ;■ for God has not exclu- 
ded either of these classes of persons from his church. He 
has, in fact, expressly recognized them both as belonging to 
it in New Testament times as well as during the former dis- 
pensation. If nothing had been said on this subject, except 
what relates to the Abrahamic covenant, no true believer in 
Divine revelation, could, after a careful investigation of this 
subject, exclude infants from its New Testament seal. 

2. Infants who are included in the new covenant, ought to 
"be baptized. This is the covenant of grace. It is new in 
opposition to the " first 77 covenant which is " old. 57 f The 
first covenant mentioned in the scriptures is that made with 
Adam as the head and representative of all his natural pos- 
terity.! Another covenant was made with Noah and his 
" seed. 7 '§ Both these were made before that was entered in- 
to with Abram and his " seed. 77 The Abrahamic covenant 
then was not the first or old covenant in opposition to the 
new. But the first to which the new covenant is opposed, 
must be that of works made with Adam. This is the first 
covenant the parts of which are mentioned in the word of 
God. That the new covenant is that of grace is also mani- 
fest from its promise. God says to those in this covenant ; 
" I will put my laws into their mind and write them in their 
hearts, and I will -be to them a God and they shall be to me 
a people ; 77 and they " all shall know me from the least 
to the greatest, — and their sins and their iniquities will 

*See Gen. 17: 7 and 18: 13 compared with Gal. 3: 7. 20. fHeb. 8: 13. {See Gen. 2: 
16. 17, Hos. 6: 7 in Heh. $Gen. 9: 9. 



286 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

I remember no more." Parents and " their children after 
them" are expressly included in this covenant.* This pro- 
mise can belong only to those who are or shall be heirs "of 
the righteousness which is by faith. "t Believers and their 
children are expressly mentioned as those to whom the pro- 
mise of this covenant belongs. If then infants may be and 
often are included in this new covenant of grace, if they 
may be and sometimes at least, are regenerated by the holy 
Spirit, if they may receive what is signified by baptism, 
they may, they ought to receive the sign ; because none 
can consistently deny the ordinance of water baptism, to 
those who. are born of the Spirit. Infants who are included 
in the covenant of grace, ought therefore to be baptized. 

3. T/tose who are prepared for heaven may be baptized. 
Of the salvation of infants dying in infancy, two instances 
are mentioned in the word of God. Of these, one was the 
child of a believer, the other of an unbeliever. The first 
mentioned is the infant child of David. Soon after its spirit 
had left this world, he consoled himself by this reflection ; 
" I shall go to him. "| This was consolation in his afflic- 
tion. But the thought of meeting his son in the world of 
wo, instead of being consolation, would have been the most 
exquisite misery. The inspired David then, the " man after" 
God's " own heart,"§ teaches that his departed infant son 
was in heaven. The other is " Abijah the son of Jerobo- 
am." In him, though a "child" when he died, was " found 
some good thing toward the Lord God of Israel. "|| As no- 
thing good in the sight of God can be sent to perdition, so we 
have here another instance of the salvation of a young child. 
Moreover, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Timothyft and others 
are mentioned as having been truly regenerated in infancy 
or in early childhood. U these had died in infancy, they 
would have been saved. Besides, if it is true, as Calvinists 
generally, if not universally, suppose, that all infants dying 
in infancy are saved through the merits of Christ and the re- 
newing grace of the Spirit, then multitudes of infants are 
taken to heaven. But the fact that any are saved proves 
that infants may be and are fitted for heaven. If therefore 
infancy does not render them unfit for heaven, it cannot ren- 

*Heb. 8: 10-12, Jer. 32: 39. 40. fHeb. 11: 7. $3 Sam. 12: 23. §Acts 13: 22. || I Kings 
14. 1. 3. 12. 13. ITSee Jer. 1: 5. Luke 1: 15, 2 Tim. 3: 15 






Ch. 2, § 4, 5.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 287 

der them unfit to receive the ordinance of christian baptism. 
And infancy appears to be the only crime alledged against 
these little immortals, as a reason why they should not be 
baptized. But if God has actually given to some and may 
or does give to others, the internal grace signified in baptism, 
it cannot be supposed that he would deny them the external 
sign. If he gives them " his own son" as their personal 
Saviour, he certainly cannot consistently with his promises, 
deny them water baptism. If " he freely" gives them Christ 
and "all things" in him, he will not withhold from them the 
external sign of his renewing grace.* If God, by his Spir- 
it, prepares an infant for the society of "just men made per- 
fect" in heaven, f it is preposterous to suppose that such an 
infant is not a proper person to receive baptism with water. 
If he gives the greater blessing, he will not in consistency 
withhold the less. Indeed, it is hard to imagine who may 
be baptized with water, if any of the truly regenerated must 
be excluded. It is therefore perfectly certain that those in-, 
fants who. are fit for heaven may and ought to be baptized.. 

4. John the Baptist baptized infants. This fact is clearly 
taught in the word of God. The scriptures declare that, 
" there went out unto" John, "Jerusalem and all Judea and 
all the region round about Jordan and were baptized of 
him. "| This language cannot denote less than that a con- 
siderable number of each class of persons in Jerusalem and 
all Judea, " were baptized of him." By the use of the inde- 
finite word all, infants are as manifestly included as adults. 
John baptized " all Judea," or not a small portion of all 
classes of persons in that region of country, i nfants con- 
stituted a part of the population of that country as they do 
of all others. As therefore, John baptized all, or some of 
all classes of persons in Judea and Jerusalem; so he must 
have baptized infants. The word all does not exclude but 
includes infants as certainly as it does adults. John therefore 
who baptized some of all classes in or at Jordan, must have 
baptized infants. 

5. Christ commands his ministering servants to baptize in- 
fants. He directs them to " teach all nations, baptizing 

them.§ Infants form a component part of every nation*, 

*See Rom. 8: 32. |Heb. 12: 23. JMat. 3: 5. 6, Mark 1: 5. $Mat. 28: 19. 20. 



288 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

Adult persons do so also. Christ commands his servants to 
baptize " all nations.'' This command includes all the clas- 
ses of persons of which every nation is composed. He does 
not name adults. He does not say baptize men and women. 
Nor yet does he name infants. But he uses a word which 
necessarily includes men, women and children, or persons 
of every age and sex. The word " nations''' as certainly 
includes infants as it does adults. It would be as impossible to 
find a nation without an infant, as to find one without an 
adult. To baptize a nation therefore is to baptize both in- 
fants and adults. A command to baptize " nations," is a 
command to baptize both infants and adults ; because both 
are necessarily and certainly included in every nation. Nor 
has one man any more right to exclude infants from the 
word "nations" than another has to exclude adults from it. 
In the command to baptize, Christ has used the word "na- 
tions" which always and necessarily includes infants. In 
order to obey this positive command of Christ, infants must 
be baptized. Those who refuse to do so, divide, and there- 
fore nullify the ministerial commission. To refuse obedi- 
ence to a part of a command, is as truly a rejection of the 
authority that g'ives it, as to reject the whole. Those who 
thus nullify the ministerial commission which Christ has giv- 
en to his servants, have a solemn account to settle with the 
King of Zion. 

This commission also requires those to whom it is intrust- 
ed, to teach the nations "whatsoever" Christ has command- 
ed. In this commission the words "teach" and " teaching" 
are both used. The word (fAa^rsutfars) translated "teach," 
literally signifies matheteuate or disciple or receive as a 
learner, each person mentioned. The word ((ShWxovtss) 
rendered " teaching," indicates the act of communicating 
instruction.* Christ therefore commands his ambassadors 
to disciple "all nations," to baptize them and instruct them 
in all things which he has revealed in his word. But the 
command does not say which is to be attended to first. If 
any person is so little acquainted with the scriptures as to 
suppose that the order of the words proves that teaching must 
precede baptism, because the word teach is first mentioned ; 

*S«e Mat. 28: 19. 20 in Greek. 



Ch. 2, § 5-] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 289 

they may be cured of that notion by attending to the fact 
that teaching is used after the word baptizing as well as be- 
fore it. If the word " teach" preceding baptize, proves that 
persons must always be instructed before they are baptized; 
then because the word baptizing is used before teaching, 
persons, by that same rule, must always be baptized before 
they are taught. Moreover, if the preceding word always 
indicates that what it expresses must precede what is expres- 
sed by the subsequent word, then baptism, or being born of 
water, must always precede regeneration or baptism with 
the Spirit. Our Saviour expressly says ; " except a man 
be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God/' and God by the prophet says ; I will 
"sprinkle clean water upon you, ; ' before he says, "a new 
heart also will I give you. 7 '* If therefore the relative posi- 
tions of the iwords proves any thing, it proves that baptism 
must precede regeneration or the gift of a new heart. But 
the fact is, the relative position of the words does not prove 
any thing on this or on any other subject. The facts taught 
by the words, not their relative position, constitute the proof. 
In the command to teach and baptize, our Saviour does not 
declare which is to be done first, nor that one of these duties 
cannot be done without the other. But it is evident that a 
person may be taught before he is baptized. It is also equal- 
ly certain that a person may be baptized before he has any 
proper instruction. This fact is manifest from the case of 
Simon the sorcerer(a). If, however, Christ had intended 
that persons must always be taught before they are baptized, 
he would have said so. But as he has not so taught us, we 
beg leave to decline implicit obedience to any additions made 
by man to this command of Christ. These and their other 
additions made to the word of God, are manifestly not in- 
tended for the promotion of his glory ; but their whole ob- 
ject is to make the scriptures appear consistent with their 
own preconceived opinions. To conform to them is there- 
fore no part of Christianity. 

It may be remarked, however, that infants begin to learn 
as soon as they are born, or very shortly after. They there- 
fore are always, or at least often, learners, or are discipled 

*John 3: 5, Ezek. 36: 25. 26. (a) See P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 1. 

19 



290 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

before they are baptized. Before this ordinance is admin- 
istered to them, they are taught. They learn by imitating 
the example of others if not by precept. And as to true 
spiritual knowledge, none of them can have less of that than 
Simon the sorcerer who " was baptized' ? (a). A person is 
discipled, becomes a learner or is taught, the moment he be- 
gins to receive instruction, as truly as he does afterwards. 
Children, properly speaking, are capable of being learners, 
and do learn from their earliest infancy. They may there- 
fore be both taught and baptized. 

It is also a fact worthy of notice, that those who have 
their children baptized, are always most anxious to have 
them taught the fundamental principles of Christianity. Facts 
abundantly prove this position. The commission by which 
Christ empowered his ministering servants to baptize, re- 
quires them to baptize infants. This, their commission, 
cannot be divided. His ministers baptize those to whom 
their commission commands them to administer the ordi- 
nance. These are infants and adults. It does not intimate 
that the baptism of either class may be dispensed with or ne- 
glected. 

Of the Lord Jesus Christ the prophet predicts ; he shall 
" sprinkle many nations."* Each of these nations includes 
infants. Christ, by his servants, is to sprinkle them. To 
fulfill this prophecy, infants and adults who together com- 
pose every nation, must be baptized by sprinkling. 

6. Families were baptized by Divine authority. This 
proves most conclusively that infants were baptized. The 
Greek word (ojxo<7) for family, certainly includes infants. 
An infant constitutes a part of the family or household as 
truly as an adult does. Its relation, not an increase of age 
or stature, constitutes an infant a member of a familj-. 
House or family, and household are words often used in the 
scriptures. In English they frequently denote the same 
thing. They usually signify the children as distinct from 
the head of a family. When the word household is synony- 
mous with family and the word house denotes persons, these 
terms in English are nearly of the same import. Two lead- 
ing points here demand attention. (1.) It is a fact that 

(a) See P. ii, Ch.2, $ 1. *Isa. 52: 15. 



Ch.. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 291 

families were baptized by Divine authority. (2.) It is a 
fact that the Greek word (otxog) for house, denoting family, 
embraces infants. That these are facts will now be proved. 
(I.) That families were baptized, is a fact often expressly 
taught in scripture. A number of these baptized families 
are mentioned. (1.) Lydia and her house or " household" 
were "baptized." (2.) The jailer and his "house" were 
"baptized."* (3.) The house or "household" of Stepha- 
nus was "baptized."f (4.) Crispus and his house were 
baptized, for he was " baptized and believed on the Lord 
with all his house."! That this family was baptized will 
not be denied by those who hold that believing church mem- 
bers have a right to receive this ordinance, because all the 
house or family, as well as Crispus, "believed." (5.) Cor- 
nelius, the Roman Centurion, " with all his house," was 
baptized. These all " feared God," — were " all — present 
before" him — heard Peter's discourse — received " the Holy 
Ghost," — and were " baptized in the name of the Lord. "*§ 
(6.) The family, house or household of Onesiphorus was 
baptized. This is manifest from the fact that they are men- 
tioned and saluted as members of the visible church. "The 
Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus ;" — " sa- 
lute — the house of Onesiphorus. "|[ (a). The Spirit of God 
does not address such language to the professed enemies of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. This house or family must there- 
fore have been publicly acknowledged as members of the 
visible church. To be thus acknowledged, they must have 
been baptized. (7.) The house or "household" of Aristob- 
ulus ; and (8.) That of Narcissus, were baptized. Both 
these are saluted as acknowledged church members, as " in 
the Lord" by profession, and therefore as being baptized. ft 
Here are eight families which are mentioned in different 
forms of words as being baptized. Mereover, the inspired 
apostle mentions the baptism of families as a very ordinary 
occurrence. After stating that he had baptized one family, 
he says ; " I know not whether I baptized any other."** If 
to baptize families had been very unusual, he would have 
known, even without inspiration, whether he had or had not 

*Acts 16: 14. 15. 31-33. tl ^or. 1: 16. % Acts 18: 8, 1 Cor. 1: 14. $Acts 10: 1. 2. 33- 
44. 47. 48. ||2 Tim. 1: 16 and 4: 19. (a) See Ch. 1, § 1. ffSee Rom. 16: 10. 11. **8ee 
1 Cor. 1: 16. 



292 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

baptized more than one family among the Corinthians. 
Two families, that of Lydia and that of the jailer, were bap- 
tized in the little church at Philippi ; more than two in the 
church at Corinth, that of Crispus, that of Onesiphorus, be- 
sides an unknown number of others. But if in the church 
at Philippi, two families were baptized, how many in pro- 
portion were baptized in the churches " at Jerusalem," — at 
" Antioch," — at « Rome," — at " Ephesus, 77 — at " Thyati- 
ra, 7 ' — at " Pergamos, 77 — at " Smyrna, 7 ' — at " Sardis, 77 — at 
"Philadelphia, 77 — in " Judea, 77 — in "Galilee, 77 — in "Sa- 
maria, 77 — in "Galatia,' 7 * and in all the other churches plant- 
ed by the apostles ? This might be a difficult question for 
immersers to solve. Of the christian converts mentioned in 
the New Testament, less than sixty are named. Of these 
nearly one half are mentioned after the resurrection of 
Christ. Though less than thirty professed believers are 
mentioned by name after the resurrection of Christ, their 
whole number must have been very great. This is undeni- 
ably certain from the language used by inspired men. "Three 
thousand 77 are mentioned, — " multitudes 77 — were " added to 
the Lord,' 7 — " the disciples were multiplied, 57 and " multi- 
plied — greatly, 7 ' — " all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron — 
turned to the Lord, 77 — " many believed in the Lord, 77 — M a 
great number believed and turned unto the Lord, 7 ' — "much 
people was added unto the Lord,' 7 — " a great multitude 77 of 
devout Greeks " consorted with Paul and Silas, 77 — " many — 

believed, 7 ' " many Corinthians — believed, 77 ! — " many 

thousands 7 ' (ixvgiadsc:) " believed. ' 7 | This Greek word (fxu- 
paSeg) in the singular number denotes ten thousand, and in 
the plural, two or more times ten thousand. When the 
term many precedes this word, it must signify several times 
ten thousand. All these multitudes and tens of thousands, 
cannot signify less than thirty or forty thousand. But of all 
these, the names of only a very small portion are mention- 
ed. Only about sixty in the whole New Testament are 
named, or one in about five hundred. About thirty of those 
believers who are mentioned after the resurrection, have 
their names recorded, or one in about a thousand. But if 

*Acts 9: 13. 31 and 11: 22. 26 and 13: 1, Rom. 1: 7, 1 Cor. 16: 1, Gal. 1: 2, 1 Thess. 2: 
14, Rev. 1: 11. fActs 2: 41 and 5: 14 and 6: 1-7 and 9: 35. 42 and 11: 21. 24 and 17: 4. 12 
and 18: 8 and 19: 18. 26. JActs 21: 20 in Greek. 



# 



Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 293 

families which are named as being baptized, bear the same pro- 
portion to those which were baptized and are not named, that 
baptized individuals who are named bear to those who are 
not ; then, for every family who, in the whole New Testa- 
ment, are definitely named as believing and being baptized, 
there were at least five hundred baptized who are not named; 
and for every family whose baptism is definitely mentioned 
as taking place after the resurrection of Christ, at least a 
thousand were baptized who are not named. Then if only 
one family was named as being baptized after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ, there would be, according to this proportion, 
at least a thousand not named ; if two are named, then there 
would be two thousand not named ; if eight families are 
named as being baptized after his resurrection, then, accord- 
ing to the proportion of baptized individuals named and not 
named, there must have been not less than eight thousand 
families who were baptized, and whose names are not on re- 
cord. All the families whose baptism are definitely men- 
tioned in the New Testament, were baptized after the resur- 
rection of Christ. These are eight in number. Those fam- 
ilies therefore who were baptized and are not named, must 
amount to at least eight thousand. Thus it appears that ac- 
cording to the proportion already mentioned, which a care- 
ful examination will show to be rather below than above the 
truth, a very large number of families were baptized by Di- 
vine authority in the apostolic age of the church. But that 
some families were baptized by inspired men, no believer in 
Divine revelation can doubt. (II.) It is a fact that the 
Greek word (oixog) for house, certainly includes infant chil- 
dren. This can be certainly ascertained. The word (01x05-) 
for house, signifying a family, is frequently used in the 
scriptures. Its signification, from the connection in which 
it is found, is generally manifest. Its true import ought to 
be carefully sought, lest man's assertion should be mistaken 
for God's word. This may be noticed in a number of par- 
ticulars. (1.) It primarily signifies children, little children, in- 
fants. In the Septuagint(a) the Greek word (oixog) for house 
often denotes infants and them only. It is said to David ; "the 
Lord — will make thee a" (oixog) " house," — he "will build 

(a) The Old Testament in Greek. 



294 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b, IV, P. III. 

thee a" (ojxos) " house.'' David prayed saying; " bless the" 
(oixog) "house of thy servant," — "let the" (oixo?) "house of 
thy servant he blessed forever;"— and God says to him, "thy" 
{01x0$) "house — shall be established."* David in prayer, 
says, "let the" (o«xo<r) "house of David — be established," — 
" thou, O — God, wilt build" thy servant a (01x0?) "house," — 
"bless the" (oixocr) "house of thy servant."! God said to 
Jeroboam, " I — will — build thee a sure" (oixov) " house."! 
In these passages God is represented, as making, building, 
establishing and blessing the (oixoc:) house. Nothing is more 
evident than that the house mentioned in these portions of 
the word of God, denotes the family, not the place of its 
abode. A family can be built up or increased in one way 
and in no other. Infants must be born as members. When 
God built up David's family or house, infant children were 
added to it. Each one of his descendants must have been an 
infant the very moment it became a part of his house or fam- 
ily which God was thus building up. Each member of which 
a house or family is built, must begin its relation in infancy. 
By adding infants to David's family, his house was made or 
built up. By them only can a family be established so as to 
be, by actual members, perpetuated for ages to come. When 
therefore God establishes a house or family for generations 
to come, he always invariably does so by the addition of in- 
fants to it. To do this children must be born to the parents. 
Therefore, whenever God speaks of a house which he builds, 
makes, establishes or blesses ; infant children are invaria- 
bly and necessarily intended by the word house. Moreo- 
ver, it is said of him who refused to marry his brother's wife, 
he " will not build up his brother's" (oixov) " house."§ Un- 
born infants are the house here mentioned. Infants only 
could build up the house or family of him who had died child- 
less. Infants yet unborn at the time, are the only persons 
that could possibly build up the deceased brother's house or 
family. Here therefore the word house evidently signifies 
infant children ; for a house can be built up of no others. 
These only can make up the family where no children are 
yet born. Of Rachael and Leah, it is said ; they " two did 
build the" (oixov) " house of Israel. "|| They did this by be- 

*2 Sam. (called in Gr. 2 Kings) 7: 11. 16. 27. 29 in Gr. U Chron. 17: 24. 25. 27 in 
Gr. $1 Kings (called in Gr. 3 Kings) 11: 3S. $Deut. 25: 9. ||Rutk 4: 11. 32 in Greek- 



Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 295 

ing the mothers of children and in no other way. To Boaz 
before his marriage, it was said; "let thy 7 ' (otxog) "house 
be like the" (ojxoj) "house of Pharez — of the seed which 
the Lord shall give thee of this young woman."* That 
which was to build up the house or family of Boaz, was cer- 
tainly infants not born when this language was used. In the 
New Testament the word (oixog) house denotes infant chil- 
dren. The inspired apostle says; "I will — that the younger 
women marry, bear children" and "guide the house. 7 '! In 
this passage the "younger women" are directed to "guide" ox 
rule " the house. 77 They are to be (oixodsoVorsn/) house-ru- 
lers. It is a fact, well known, that infants, in the early part 
of their lives, can be guided or ruled only by the mother. 
The word (oixog) house, must therefore be used in this con- 
nection to denote infants or very small children. When 
they become somewhat advanced in childhood, the father or 
others may assist in guiding them. But as the mother only 
is here directed to " guide the house ; 77 so therefore the word 
house must signify infants or very small children and no oth- 
er persons. (2. ) The word house denoting a family, is fre- 
quently used where infants are certainly included. Jacob de- 
sired to "provide for 77 his "own 7 ' (ojxov) " house. 77 | This 
was before he began to serve Laban for his cattle. He had 
served him fourteen years for his two daughters. Seven 
years of this time had passed before he married Leah and 
Rachael. He had therefore been married to his wives only 
seven years when he desired to "provide for 77 his " own 77 
(ojxov) " house. 77 At this time, by his four wives, he had 
eleven sons and one daughter. § The " house" then for 
which he wished to "provide 7 ' included twelve children all 
less than seven years of age. It is perfectly certain there- 
fore that the word house, in this connection, includes infants 
or very small children. Of the "children of Israel 77 who 
"came into Egypt, 77 it is said ; "ever}'' man and his 77 (tfav- 
oixj) "household, 7 ' literally his whole house, "came with 
Jacob.' 7 1| The fojxojr) "house of Jacob which came into 
Egypt, 7 ' was composed in part of "little ones 77 or infants. 
This is expressly stated in the account given of their depar- 

*Ruth 4: 11. 12 in Gr. 11 Tim. 5: 14 in Greek. JOen. 30: 30 in Gr. $ Pee Gen. 29: 
20. 21. 27. 28. 30-35 and 30: 4-13. 17. 21. 23. 28-34 and 31: 41 all in Greek. ||Ex. 1: 1 in 
Greek. 



206 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

ture into that land of cruel oppression.* Of the nation of 
Israel, "great, mighty and populous, 7 ' which, like all na- 
tions, must have included infants, it is said ; God made Eze- 
kiel "a watchman unto the" (oixw) "house of Israel. "t In 
this passage, the word house is synonymous with nation. It 
therefore must include infants and young children ; because 
no nation can exist without these. The expressions, "the" 
(ojjcoct) "house of Israel," — " the" (ojxoct) " house of Jacob," 
— "the house of Judah," — "the house of David," — "the 
house of Jeroboam," — " the house of Ahab,"J &c., must ne- 
cessarily include infants. Each of these expressions denotes 
all the descendants of the person mentioned in it. Among 
these, infants must therefore be included. Indeed, each one 
of their descendants, must have been an infant the moment 
it began to compose a part of the house or family. That in- 
fants are included in the word (oixog) for house is therefore 
certain. In the (ojxck;) house of the bishop or pastor and in 
that of the deacon, mentioned by the apostle Paul, infants 
must have been included ; because each is commanded to 
rule his house well.§ In these and in many other passages 
of scripture, the word (oixotf) for house is so used as necessa- 
rily to include infants or very young children. (3.) The 
Greek word for house is used to denote children as distinct 
from their parents. The Lord said unto Noah, " come thou 
and all thy" (ojxoo-) "house into the ark ;" — Jacob in fear of 
the Canaanites, says, "I shall be destroyed, I and my" 
(oixotf) " house ;" of those who went down into Egypt, it is 
said, "every man and his" (<xavoix>) whole house or "house- 
hold came with Jacob ;" — to Israel God gave the command, 
" ye shall rejoice, — ye and your" (ojxoj) "households" or 
houses ; — to each one of them he said, " thou shalt rejoice, 
thou and thy" (oixotf) "household," or house, and again, 
"thou shalt eat" the firstling, — "thou and thy"* (01x00* ) 
"household" or house; — of the heave-offering, he directed 
them and their (ojxoi) "households" to eat; — God said to 
David, " behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine 
own" (ojxou) " house," or from among thy children ; — the 
(oixou) house which the bishop and the (ojxwv) houses which 

*See Gen. 43: 8 and 45: 19 and 46: 5.27. 31 in Gr. fDeut. 26: 5, E 2 ek. 3: 17 in Gr. 
+ See 1 Kings (called in Gr. 3 Kings) 12: 19-21. 26 and 15: 29 and 16: 3 and 21: (in Gr. 
30:) 22, Isa. 53: 1, Ezek. II: 15 Hnd 18: 15, Zech. 12: 7. 8. 10. 12. 13, Euke 1: 27 and £ 
4, Heb. 8: 8. 10 in Gr. §See 1 Tim. 3: 4. 5. 12 in Greek. 



Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 297 

the deacons were to rule could not include the rulers.* From 
each of them their family or house must have been distinct. 
In each of these passages, it is perfectly manifest to any one, 
even to the most superficial and prejudiced, that the word 
(oixotf) house signifies children as distinct from their parents. 
(4.) The Greek word for house, when it is used for persons, 
always denotes relations, and almost always descendants. It 
signifies connections by affinity or marriage as well as by 
consanguinity or by blood. But when it signifies a family, 
it in no instance includes servants or strangers. It often 
denotes descendants for a number of generations. All this 
is manifest from the passages already quoted ; especially 
those which mention the house of Noah, of Israel, of Ja- 
cob, of David, &c. It is therefore evident from what has 
been said in this section that when the word (oocotf) for house 
is used in the scriptures to denote persons ; it primarily and 
principally signifies infants, and only in a secondary sense 
and very seldom does it denote or even include adults. This 
word (oixoc) is once used by the Holy Spirit to denote a mo- 
ther and a grand-mother or aunt. It is not certain which is in- 
cluded, as the original word (sxyova) may signify either 
grand-children or nephews. The language is this "if any 
widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to show 
piety (idiovoixov) "at home/ 7 literally to their own house, or 
in other words, to their mothers and aunts or grand-mothers. f 
Moreover, it ought to be observed that the' word (oixorf) for 
house, is not, in the New Testament and very seldom if at 
all in the Septuagint, used to denote married persons without 
children. 

Uninspired writers frequently use the Greek word (oixog) 
for house in the scriptural sense here mentioned. In the 
Apocrypha, it is said ; "the blessing of the father establish- 
ed the" (oixovg) " houses of children. "f In this quotation 
houses must denote children. They are said to be establish- 
ed by the blessing of the father. He whose blessing is men- 
tioned is represented as the father of the children whose 
houses are blessed. The term houses therefore here signi- 
fies the children of children or grand-children. A grand- 

*Gen. 7: land 34: 30, Ex. 1: 1, Dent. 12: 7 and 14: 26 and 15: 20, Nam. 18: 31, 2 Sam. 
(Gr. 2 Kings) 12: 11, 1 Tim. 3: 4. 5. 12 ail in Greek and English. U Tim. 5; 4, in Gr, 
jEcclus. (called io Greek, the wisdom of Sirach) 3; 9, 



298 . BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

father by his blessing'orapprobation can do much to establish 
his grand-children in ways of wisdom and virtue. Through 
this instrumentality a family may be so established as to con- 
tinue from generation to generation. A " house' 7 (o»xov) is 
said to be "a thrice Olympic victor"(a); when a person(i), 
his father(c) and his grand-father(d) were each victorious in 
the Olympic games. A noted Greek writer who was born 
and educated in Greece, defines the word (ojxos) for house. 
He says it signifies, "a society long connected together ac- 
cording to the course of nature"(e). Such a society is com- 
posed of "those who eat at the same board"(y), — or of 
"those who sit around the same fire-side"(g), — or of •' those 
who sit around the same table"(/i), — or of "those who are 
free by birth"(z). Such a society is what Aristotle calls 
(oixocr) a house, when that word denotes persons. It must 
therefore primarily and necessarily denote or include infant 
children. These are always and incontrovertibly connected 
to their parents and to each other according to the course of 
nature. It cannot include servants ; for these are not sup- 
posed to be so connected ; nor are they born {ree. 

The Arabs use their word for house, or they say those at 
home, when they speak of their wives and daughters^' ). 
The Latin word (domus) for house is frequently used to sig- 
nify a family including infants. The modern Italian word 
(casa) for house is often used in the same sense. The En- 
glish word house is sometimes in the present day, but was 
much more frequently in former periods, used to express a 
family including all the children of every age. No term 
can be used which will more certainly denote or include in- 
fants than the word (toxog) house or family. It is in fact 
used, by different Greek writers, more than three hundred 
times, in such connection as to express or include infant 
children. 

When this word (oixog) house denotes persons, it is used 
metaphorically. All proper metaphors have a special refer- 
ence to language in its literal import. Metaphorical lan- 
guage is not therefore the fancy of a disordered mind. To 
use it, is a proper, though not a literal, mode of speaking. 

(a) See Find. Ode. 13. (b) Xenophon. (c) Thessalus. (d) Pteodorus. (e) See 
Aristotle's Polity, B. i, Ch. 2. (f) Charondas. (e) Epimenides i he Cretan, (h) Du 
Val, the editor of Aristotle's works, (i) Aris. Pol. B. i, Ch. 3. (j) See Man. Arabs 
by D'Arieax. 



Ch. 2, § 6. J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 299 

A literal house among the Hebrews was a permanent habi- 
tation. Jt was usually built of stone or of some similar ma- 
terials. It was essentially different from the tent. This 
last was moveable and constructed of perishable materials. 
When a house was to be built literally, the walls were raised 
by adding stones or other suitable materials to the building 
which persons were erecting. A metaphorical house or fa- 
mily is therefore built up by adding to it living metaphorical 
materials. If it be asked, what is to be added to a house or 
family to build it up? the only proper answer that can be 
given to the question is this ; infants must be born to in- 
crease the family or house. Whenever therefore God speaks 
of building a house or family, he speaks of infants being 
born to compose or increase it. No other materials can 
build a metaphorical house. These then must form it when- 
ever it is built up. 

If servants or property were to be included in a word, an- 
other was used by the Greeks. They then employed a word 
(oixia) for which it is difficult to find an exact substitute in 
the English language. Household, denoting the family or 
house and what holds to it, expresses more of its meaning 
than any other single English word. But the term (ojxjcc) 
itself includes or may include the family, the dwelling, the 
out-houses, the servants and the property in and near the 
buildings. This compound idea is frequently at least, em- 
braced in this one Greek word. To perceive that the mean- 
ing of (oixocr) the word for house or family is included in 
(oixia) the one which includes all this compound idea, we 
have only to examine the meaning of these two words (ojxoj 
and or/.ia) as indicated by the connection in which they are 
found. The signification of each can be definitely ascer- 
tained. The meaning of one of them (oncog) has already been 
noticed. That of the other (oixia) will now be briefly exam- 
ined. This word (oix»a) says a noted uninspired Greek wri- 
ter^), is used to denote both "bond and free. 7 ' But let us 
find its meaning in God's book. A few paragraph from the 
inspired word, will show its meaning as taught by perfect 
wisdom. 7/ includes servants. This is taught in the salu- 
tation "of Caesar's" (oixiv.g) "household."* About the year 
64, when this was written, not one of Csesars relations had 

(a) Aristotle. *Phil. 4: 22 in Greek, 



300 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

been converted to Christianity ; but at that time a number 
of his servants had embraced the christian faith. The word 
(oixia) therefore which includes servants is used, not that 
(ioxog) which denotes kindred or relations. Our Saviour de- 
clares " the servant abideth not in the" (oixia) "house for- 
ever.' 7 * Here the word (ojxia) signifies or certainly includes 
the apartments appropriated to the servants for their special 
accommodation. It denotes out-houses. It is said of Christ 
and his mother ; " there was no room for them in the inn;" 
yet the wise men, "when they were come into the" (o«x/av) 
" house — saw the young child with Mary his Mother." The 
word here certainly denotes a stable or an out-house ; for 
Jesus after his birth was laid " in a manger."t This word 
(ojxia) includes the property belonging to the family. This 
truth is taught in the charge brought by our Saviour against 
the Pharisees. He says to them; "ye devour widows" 
(omag) " houses."! These words (oixog and oixia) are not 
synonymous ; nor are they so nearly so, that the one may he 
substituted for the other. The account which God, by his 
inspired servant, gives of the conversion of Cornelius the 
Roman Centurion, proves this position. His dwelling inclu- 
ding his family, is five times expressed by (oixog) one of these 
words. He " feared God with all his" (oixco) "house;" — an 
angel directed him to send for Peter " into his" (ojxov) 
"house;" — Peter and "six brethren — entered into the man's" 
(o»xov) "house;"-"he had seen an angel in his" (owed) "house;" 
— "thou and all thy 7 ' (01x0$) " house shall be saved."§ The 
dwelling, out-houses, servants and family of Simon the tan- 
ner or his whole establishment is four times expressed by 
(ojxicc) the other word. The tanner's (oixia) "house is by 
the sea-side;" — the men enquired "for Simon's" (oixiav) 
"house;" — Peter " is lodged in the" (oixia) " house of one 
Simon a tanner;' 7 — "three men" came "unto the" (oixirxv) 
"house where" Peter "was."|| In this account, the angel, 
the inspired writer of the Acts, Cornelius, his servants and 
Peter, all use these words. But in no instance is the one 
substituted for the other. The Spirit of God does not there- 
fore use them as if they were synonymous. Moreover, the 
one (oixocr) expresses only a part of what the other (oixia) sig- 

*John 8: 35 in Greek. tSee Mat. 2: 11, Luke 2: 7. 12. 16 in Greek. JMat. 23: 14 in 
Greek. $Acts 10: 2. 22and 11: 12-14 in Greek. ||Acts 10: 6. 17. 32 and 11: 11 in Greek. 



Ch. 2. § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 301 

nifies. The word which denotes only a part of any thing 
cannot be synonymous with that which expresses the whole. 
Besides, the one(oixocr)is masculine and the other (ojxjot) is fem- 
inine. This their difference of gender, as well as their dif- 
ference of signification, shows that they cannot be inter- 
changed. It appears therefore that the meaning of the word 
{oixos) for house denoting a family, is definitely fixed in the 
Greek language; that it primarily and principally signifies 
infants; and that it is very seldom if at all used where in- 
fants are not included. It is also manifest that where ser- 
vants and others compose the whole or a part of the society 
mentioned, another word (ojxia) is used. 

If then this word (oixog) for house is employed when fami- 
lies are said to be baptized ; no language can more definite- 
ly express infants. When children and little children are 
mentioned as baptized church members as they frequently 
are, the unsupported assertion is often made ; these are met- 
aphorical children or infants. This declaration is made 
without any authority from God's word for doing so. It is 
intended merely to ward off the arrow of conviction from the 
heart and conscience of those who make the assertion. But 
when the word (oixog) for house or family is used almost in- 
variably to signify or include infants ; there is no way, 
when this is used for those who were baptized, to escape 
from the force of truth, but by denying such an array of 
facts as infidelity itself would hesitate to encounter. 

The Spirit of God by inspired writers used such language 
as would convey ideas to the mind of the careful reader of 
the word. The scriptures were written to be searched and 
understood. The words used by the writers of them, were 
those usually employed by others on similar subjects. The 
Spirit suggested to their minds suitable words to express the 
exact will of God in every part of their writings.* If any 
one in the days of the apostles had said to a Jew, whether 
learned or unlearned, a (oixos) house was baptized ; the idea 
of infant baptism would have been instantly presented to his 
mind. He would know that the word (oixos) denoting per- 
sons signified infants and certainly included them as distinct 
from their parents; He would at once perceive that the 

*See 1 Cor. 2: 13. 



302 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV,. P. III. 

word expressed descendants however young they might be. 
Every Jew was too much accustomed to such expressions as 
"the" (ojxoiT) " house of Israel," — "the house of Jacob," — 
" the house of Judah," — " the house of David," &c, to doubt 
for a moment that this word (oixotf) primarily signified or 
necessarily included infants. If to a Grecian, learned or 
unlearned, it was said ; a man's (oixotf) house was baptized, 
the word (oixotf) would immediately convey to his mind the 
idea of a "society connected together according to the course 
of nature," — "descendants," — or the "free- born" children 
residing under the same roof. The expression would teach 
him that infants were certainly baptized ; for this word (01- 
xod) for house denoting persons, almost always in Greek 
signifies or includes them. 

U to a person acquainted with the Greek language, it had 
been said ; Lydia " was baptized" and her (oixog) house or 
" household," he would from the force of the words, be in- 
formed that little children or infants were baptized. This 
he would easily perceive was taught or certainly included 
in the word (01x05) house or " household" here used. He 
would know from the use of this word that her servants, if 
she had any, were not included. If the Spirit of God had 
intended to teach the world that servants were embraced 
among those who are here mentioned, another word (oixict) 
would have been employed. But besides the use of a word 
(oixog) which denotes or certainly includes children however 
young, all the circumstances of the case prove that Lydia's 
family were infants or very young children. (1.) It is not 
said that they went to the place for prayer by the " river- 
side," — or that they " heard" the preaching, — or that " the 
Lord opened" their hearts, — or that they "worshipped 
God," — or that they were "faithful to the Lord," — or that 
they attended to the business of selling " purple," — or that 
they invited or " constrained" the apostles to abide with 
them, — or that these " entered into" their " house" after 
they left the prison.* These eight circumstances are all 
mentioned of Lydia, not one of them of her household or 
family that were baptized. If any one of her family had 
been an adult, that one would certainly have been included 
with the mother in some of these statements. (2.) Lydia, 

*Acta 16: 14. 15. 40. 



Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 303 

in addressing the apostles, speaks as if she had her whole 
family and possessions under her own special control. She 
says, "my house;" not our house. This shows that her 
children must have been quite young. (3.) r lhe sacred 
writer speaks of her as having entire control over each indi- 
vidual in her house or family. He says, she was U a seller 
of purple," — " she besought us," — " she constrained us," — 
Paul and. Silas "entered into the house of Lydia," &c. 
These expressions show that she and no other person, had a 
right to invite guests to her house ; and that therefore her 
children must have been very young. If they or any of 
them had been adults, they would have enjoyed this right in 
common with the mother, if she gave no order to the con- 
trary. That she did not forbid her children to invite the 
apostles to her house, is manifest from two facts. These 
facts are ; the Lord had opened her heart ; and she her- 
self invited them. She being now a christian, would not 
forbid her children to invite the Lord's servants to her house; 
nor would she forbid them to do what she herself did. (4.) 
The family of Lydia in not mentioned except in connection 
with her baptism. If she is baptized then her (oixog) family 
is mentioned ; if she is not baptized, then her household is 
not so much as named. That not one of Lydia's house, 
household or family, is mentioned except at their baptism, 
will be manifest to any one who will read the whole account 
with care. It is said that " they," Paul, Silas and Timothy, 
" went through the cities" in Asia Minor ; — ■" we," Paul, 
Silas, Timothy and the writer(a) of the Acts, (for the term 
we includes the speaker or writer,) "endeavored to go into 
Macedonia ;" — " we," the same persons, " were in that 
city — certain days ;" — " we went out of the city by a river 
side — and sat down ;" — Lydia " constrained us." This word 
us expresses the same persons. When these servants of God 
had cast a " spirit of divination" (Z») out of a damsel, her 
masters caught Paul and Silas, and the magistrates cast them 
into prison. The other two must have escaped, for it is not 
said or intimated that they were caught or imprisoned. These 
two found a place of concealment in Lydia's house. This 
we learn from the fact that after Paul and Silas were re- 
fa; This was Luke the Evangelist, (b) A Pythonic spirit or a spirit ofPythen 
(Greek.") 



304 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IIT. 

leased from confinement, they "entered" her " house," saw 
"the brethren,' 7 — "comforted them and departed — to Thes- 
salonica." Timothy joined Paul and Silas again at Berea. 
Luke the writer of the Acts, the other brother left at Philip- 
pi, did not join them again till they came " to Troas." 
He says, they " tarried for us at Troas, and we sailed — 
from Philippi — and came unto them to Troas."* The breth- 
ren whom Paul and Silas saw at the house of Lydia, are 
not called her children, her servants, or her (oixot) house or 
family. The word (uSsXyourf) " brethren," does not inti- 
mate that they were her descendants, but rather the contra- 
ry. Every circumstance of the case therefore, as well as 
the positive language used, shows that Lydia's family or 
household was composed of little children. In the Syriac 
translation of the New Testament(rt), this passage is thus 
rendered; Lydia "was baptized and the children of her 
household." If the word little had preceded children in this 
translation, the exact meaning of the inspired word (ojxotf) 
used for Lydia's family would have been given. 

If it was said to a native Greek, as the Philippian jailer 
probably was ; " believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou 
shalt be saved and thy (oixotf) " house ;" and if it was said 
of him as it was of the jailer ; " he — was baptized — and all 
his straightway ;" he would from the use of the word (oixoa) 
house, expressed, and from the use of the same word implied, 
at once conclude that infants were baptized. The jailer and 
his (oixocf) house, were baptized. If it is asked, who besides 
the jailer was baptized on that occasion ? the answer must, 
from the connection, be his (oixotf) house, or family. This 
word, as has been shown, signifies -primarily little children 
or infants. When it is said, Paul and Silas " spake unto 
him the word of the Lord and to all that were in his house, 
another word (o;x»a not oixoc) is used for house or household. 
The gospel was preached to him and to all jhat were (sv <tt] 
oixia) on the premises, or to him, to the prisoners and to his 
servants. All these may be included in this Greek word 
(oixia). But when his baptism is mentioned, then he is "bap- 
tized" and all his (oixotf) house or family. After he was bap- 
tized ; he "brought" Paul and Silas " into his' 7 (cww) "house 77 

* Ads 15: 40 and 16: 1. 4. 10. 12 13. 15-19. 23. 40 and 17: 1. 4. 10. 13. 14 and 20: 5. 6. 
(a) This translation was made in the year 133 or before. 



Ch. 2, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 305 

or family apartment, and "rejoiced — with" (tfavotxi) "all 
his house."* Here the very same word (Votvoixj) which 
is used in the Septuagint to include the " little ones" of 
Jacob's family which came down into Egypt, is employed to 
express the jailer's family. When used of Jacob's descend- 
ants, it certainly includes infants. When God uses it of the 
jailer's house, no one ought to venture to say, it excludes 
them. But as it certainly includes infants in the one connec- 
tion ; it does so also in the other, unless they are excluded 
by some form of expression. From the language used in 
relation to the baptism of the jailer and his (oixog) house, it 
is certain that his family or little ones were baptized ; for 
the word (oixog) house, when it signifies persons, primarily 
denotes infants or small children. That the jailer's family 
was composed of or at least included little children, is far- 
ther manifest from the circumstances incidentally mention- 
ed in the account. (1.) It is not stated that one of his chil- 
dren was advanced to adult age. God uses a word (ojxos) to 
express his family, which primarily denotes infants. He 
does not say that one of them was grown up, or even advan- 
ced in childhood. To believe therefore that they were 
adults, is to believe without evidence ; it is to believe against 
the most pointed proof. Those who give their assent to that 
and to that only which is proved, will not believe that any 
member of the family either of the jailer or of Lydia, was an 
adult ; because there is not the least intimation given by in- 
spiration or in any other way, to show that any member of 
either family v/as grown up. (2.) The jailer had not passed 
the prime of life. This appears from three considerations. 
He was a jailer; this office required, for the proper discharge 
of its duties, all the vigor of manhood. He was rash ; he 
drew out his sword and would have killed himself. This ac- 
tion savors rather of youth than of the cool deliberation of 
age and experience. He was active ; "he sprang" into the 
inner prison where Paul and Silas were made fast in the 
stocks. This action indicates vigorous activity. These thxee 
circumstances incidentally mentioned, show clearly that the 
jailer had not passed the meridian of life. He was therefore 
comparatively a young man. But if he was young ; it is 

*See Acts 16: 23. 27. 29. 31-34, Ex. 1: 1 in Greek. 

20 



306 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

rather worse than fancy to suppose that all his children were 
adults. It is therefore manifest from the use of a word (01- 
xos) which primarily denotes infants, and from the inciden- 
tal facts mentioned by inspiration in the account of his bap- 
tism and that of his family, that it was composed of or cer- 
tainly included infants. 

Remarks similar to these might be made in relation to 
each family whose baptism is definitely mentioned in God's 
word. In speaking of the baptism of each of these, the 
word (ojxoc;) for house is used. This primarily signifies in- 
fants. It always, or at least, almost always, when it does 
not distinctly signify, certainly does include them. No word 
can more definitely express infants than this does. When 
the (o»xocr) house denoting persons is said to be baptized, no 
language can more pointedly teach the doctrine of infant 
baptism. In the Old Testament in Greek, this word (oixog) 
is frequently used. It often denotes infants and no other 
persons. When, at any time, its signification is more gen- 
eral ; it, in almost every instance includes them. Greek 
writers define this word so as certainly to z'nclude infants. 
Did the Spirit of God by using the same word (oixog) ex- 
elude them % Infant children are primarily intended 
when this word (oixog) is used to denote persons. When 
God's inspired servants are said to baptize the (o»xocr) house 
or family, infant children are intended by the language used. 
If men assert that these are excluded, some evidence to prove 
their position, becomes indispensable. Sensible men who 
believe what is proved, cannot admit that a word (oixog) 
which primarily denotes infants, excludes them or means 
adults only, without some shadow of evidence. When God, 
speaking of the baptism of a family, uses a word (oixog) 
which denotes or necessarily includes infants ; those who af- 
firm that all the persons composing those families whose 
baptism is mentioned in the word of God, were adults, ought 
to prove their position. God, when he says that the (oixog) 
house or family were baptized, declares, by the word used, 
in favor, of infant baptism. Let him therefore who rejects 
the baptism of infants, stand forth and prove, not by asser- 
tions and questions, but by evidence, that every individual in 
the families of Lydia, of the jailer, of Cornelius, of Stepha- 






Ch. 2, § 7.} INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. SOT 

nas, &c, was an adult. Let him show which of the sacred 
writers declares this. Let him name the book, chapter and 
verse in the scriptures, in which we are informed that these 
families were all adults. Let him show that inspired men 
were mistaken when they used a word (oixog) for house or 
family which primarily denotes or necessarily includes in- 
fants. Let him prove that the "house' 7 or family which the 
younger women were to " guide,' 7 was composed entirely of 
adults. Let him point to the passage of scripture in which 
this is taught. To show that the word (oixog) house deno- 
ting persons, signifies infants or necessarily includes them, 
thirty or forty instances have been cited ; and if these are 
not sufficient to convince the most sceptical, hundreds more 
can be produced to prove the same fact. But not the least 
scriptural evidence can be produced to prove that, in any one 
or more of the families whose baptism is mentioned in the 
word of God, a single adult was included among the chil- 
dren. The word (oixog) house has a number of other signifi- 
cations in scripture, such as dwelling, heaven, &c. But as 
these have no particular reference to the subject of baptism, 
they are not noticed here. 

7. The whole force oj the Greek language is used by the 
Holy Spirit in favor of infant baptism. Six words (fipscpos, 
/3ps<puXXiov, tfaig, rfcti8w, tsxvov, and tsxvjov) in Greek are 
used to denote infants or little children. Of these (/3ps<poj) 
the one denoting a new born child and (irats) that denoting 
a small child, are roots. The word (<rsx>nov) for a little child, 
is derived from (rsxvov) that which signifies a child. This 
last is derived from (rsxvow) one which means to procreate. 
These four words (/Sp&po?, tfcuc;, rsxvov and rsxviov) are used 
in the Greek New Testament for infants that were to be or 
had been baptized. Of the " infants' 7 concerning whom our 
Saviour says ; " of such is the kingdom of God, 77 the word 
(fipsyos) for young infant, and (rfaiSiov) that for young child, 
are employed.* Of some of the baptized Galatians, the 
word (<rsxv»ov) for little child is used.f To express some of 
the baptized church members addressed by John in his epis- 
tles, the words (Vsxviov, taiSiov and rsxvov) denoting little 
child, infant and child, are used. J Moreover, the inspired 

*See Luke 18: 15. 16 in Greek. tSee Gal. 4: 19 in Greek. JSee 1 John 2: 1. 12. 13. 
18. 28 and 3: 7. 10. 18a»d 4: 4 and 5: 2. 21 in Greek, 2 John 1: 13 in Gr. ; 3 John: 4 in Gr. 



308 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

Peter calls some of the church members to whom he wrote 
(rsxva) " children."* Thus all the words in the Greek lan- 
guage, which signify infants or little children, except two 
derivatives, are used by inspired men to express those who 
were baptized or had a right to the ordinance of baplism(a). 
These two derivatives do not express infant children any 
more definitely than their primitives. The force of these 
is therefore expressed by their roots. Thus the whole force 
of the Greek language is brought by Divine wisdom to sus- 
tain the doctrine of infant baptism Every word in that el- 
egant and copious language, which can express infants how- 
ever young, is used by inspired men to designate those who, 
as publicly recognized church members, must have been bap- 
tized. 

A few of the leading evidences in favor of infant baptism, 
may here be summed up. (1.) Jesus Christ commands his 
ministers to baptize nations.? Nations certainly include in- 
fants ; therefore he certainly commands his ministers to bap- 
tize infants. (2.) The Jewish nation certainly included in- 
fants. The whole Jewish nation were " baptized in the 
cloud and in the sea"£(&) ; therefore infants were certainly 
baptized. (3.) Jerusalem and all Judea in the days of John 
the Baptist, certainly included infants. § John baptized "all" 
these; he therefore certainly baptized infants. (4.) All pub- 
licly recognized church members have certainly been bap- 
tized^). " Infants' 7 or " little children" are, by inspired 
men, often mentioned as publicly recognized church mem- 
bers ; therefore they certainly recognize infants as having 
been baptized. (5.) The word (oixo?) for house or family 
certainly includes infants. When the baptism of families by 
inspired men, is mentioned ; this word (oixog) is used to de- 
signate those who received the ordinance of baptism :j| there- 
fore they certainly baptized infants. (6.) The Greek lan- 
guage can teach the doctrine of infant baptism. The whole 
force of that language is employed by Divine wisdom to 
teach infant baptism ; therefore the doctrine of infant bap- 
tism is taught by its varied and pointed expressions on this 
subject. Those who can resist such evidence, would not be 

*1 Pet. 1: 14 in Greek, (a) See Ch. 1, § 1-4. fSee Mat. 23: 10. {See 1 Cor. 10: 2. 
(b) i B. iij, p. i, Ch. 2, $ 5. $See Mat. 3: 5. (c) Ch. 1, $ 1-4. ||See Acts 10: 15. 31-34 
in Oreek. 



Ch. 2, § 8, 9.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 309 

convinced though one " rose from the dead" to bear testimo- 
ny in favor of this important truth. 

8. God intimates that infants are to be baptized. Addres- 
sing church members, God says to them ; "ye are no more 
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints.' 7 * 
The parents are " fellow-citizens with the saints," by ex- 
ternal profession. Externally they are on the Lord's side. 
They professedly belong to his kingdom. But it is a settled 
principle that infant children are citizens of the same gov- 
ernment with the parents. If this be a correct principle, 
and no defect is perceived in it, then the infant children of 
God's professed people must be externally on his side. When 
the parent is a citizen in human governments, so are his 
infant children. When the parent is externally a fellow- 
citizen "with the saints," so must his infant children be; 
for God has not excluded them. Infants, in all well-regu- 
lated human governments, enjoy certain privileges which 
they are capable of receiving. If God's kingdom is not less 
favorable to parents and to their infant offspring, than human 
governments are ; then in his visible kingdom, infants may 
receive those privileges which they, in common with all its 
other members, are capable of receiving. But infants are 
capable of receiving baptism(a) ; they may therefore on this 
principle, receive that ordinance. What government, even 
among men, would refuse to all infants born of its citizens, 
the protection and rights due to them 1 It is a blessing to 
know that God has received them into his visible kingdom, 
and has never excluded them from it or from the seal of vis- 
ible church membership. Indeed, he has expressly recog- 
nized them as belonging to and constituting a part of his 
kingdom. f In this way, God manifestly intimates that in- 
fants are to be baptized and thus publicly recognized as mem- 
bers of his visible kingdom. 

9. God, by implanting parental affection in the human 
breast, indicates that infants ought to be baptized. The pa- 
rent who really desires to be in covenant with God, will de- 
sire to have his children sustain the same relation. The 
cords of affection bind the parent's heart to the child. God 
has implanted this affection in the parental bosom. It leads 

*Eph. 2: 19. (a) See P. ii, Ch. 4, $ 1-4. f^ee Gen. 17: 1-14. 23. 25-27 and 21: 4, 
Lake 18: 16, 1 John 2: 1. 12. 13. 



"310 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

the parent to desire for his child, the same blessings which 
he desires for himself. The parent therefore who sincerely 
desires to be himself in covenant with God, and really val- 
ues that relation, will desire to bring his children with him 
into this covenant relation. God therefore directed Abram 
to bring his seed into the same covenant into which he him- 
self was permitted and required to enter. Nor has he ever 
yet excluded either believing parents or their infant chil- 
dren from an interest in that covenant. When an adult re- 
ceives the seal of the covenant, God does not then break the 
cords of affection which bind him to his child. He permits, 
he requires the child, as well as the parent, to be dedicated 
to the Triune God in baptism. Thus another cord, and that 
a sanctified one, binds the parent's soul to that of his infant 
child. The voice of God therefore speaking through the 
parent's heart, directs him to dedicate in baptism, his infant 
seed to the Triune Jehovah. 

Infants are human beings. They are not animals or in- 
animate matter. What perfect heartlessness must that man 
possess who can speak of infants destined to an undying ex- 
istence, as if they were mere animals ! ! To such we would 
merely say ; the infant's God hears your inhumanly vulgar 
language. It is recorded in his book of remembrance. If 
the rejection of infant baptism, leads you to utter such ex- 
pressions, it is time for you to begin to retrace your steps in 
relation to this matter. 

10. The scriptures indirectly teach infant baptism. What 
they indirectly teach is inspiration. It is as truly God's re- 
vealed will as what is more directly taught. The only dif- 
ference is this. In the one case the revelation is more man- 
ifest ; in the other it is less so. To ascertain what God's 
will is, when he teaches indirectly in his word, requires more 
close attention than when he uses definite language. But 
the instruction is no less valuable than if it was more direct- 
ly communicated. When God indirectly teaches infant bap- 
tism, it ought to be as firmly believed as if it was more di- 
rectly taught. It is not the manner of teaching, but the in- 
struction, and the authority of the instructer, which se- 
cures the belief, the love, reverence and obedience of him 
who takes the word of God for his only rule in all religious 



Ch. 2, § 10.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 311 

duties. Infant baptism is indirectly taught in the scriptures. 
This a few particular cases will prove. (1.) The hordes 
supper is the Neiv Testament Passover. " Christ our Pass- 
over" has been "sacrificed for us/'* A "bone of him 
shall not be broken" is equally true of the Old and New 
Testament paschal lamb. I In the holy supper, the Lord 
Jesus Christ, our paschal lamb, is sacramentally present. 
He teaches this truth when he says ; " This is my body 7 ' in 
emblem ; " this is my blood" emblematically exhibited to 
you.J But as the Lord's supper is the New Testament 
Passover, so baptism must be New Testament circumcision. 
New Testament believers have nothing except baptism as a 
substitute for circumcision. As one Old Testament sacra- 
ment is found in the holy supper, so the other must be found 
in baptism. Two sacraments were instituted under each 
dispensation of the covenant. One New Testament sacra- 
ment takes, without dispute, the place of the Passover ; the 
other must therefore take the place of circumcision. But 
men first reject infant baptism and then deny that baptism 
takes the place of circumcision. In both these steps they 
substitute the wisdom of man for that of God.§ (a). But 
baptism being New Testament circumcision, it is evident that 
as infants were required to be circumcised when circumci- 
sion was the seal of the covenant(5)||, so infants are required 
to be baptized when baptism is the seal of the covenant. 
Here therefore infant baptism is indirectly taught in God's 
own book. (2.) The Jews did not find fault with Christ or 
with his disciples for excluding infants from their relation to 
the church or from the New Testament seal of the covenant. 
If Christ before his death, or his disciples afterwards, had 
taught that infants were to be excluded from the covenant 
and from the use of its seal, the Jews who were constantly 
seeking something against them with which they could find 
fault, would certainly have opposed them on this account. 
The Israelites highly valued the seal of the covenant. They 
adhered to it with superstitious tenacity. To be without the 
seal of the covenant, or to be uncircumcised, was exceeding- 
ly reproachful in the eyes of a Jew.fl Those who thus high- 

*1 Cor. 5: 7. fEx. 12: 46, Num. 9: 12, Ps. 34: 20, John 19: 36. {Mat. 26: 26. 28. §See 
Col. 2: 11. 12. (a) See § 1, par. 12. (a) P. i, Ch. 3, § 7. 8. l|See Rom. 4: 11, TC3ee 
I Sam. 17: 36, Acts 7: 51. 54 and II: 2. 3.- 



3.19 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

ly valued the seal of the covenant, while they were bitter 
enemies of Christ and his people, would not have neglected 
to oppose them for refusing to infants its New Testament 
seal, if they had done so. On this point, the silence of the 
Jews is an eloquent argument in favor of infant baptism. 
Silence, on certain occasions, reaches the understanding 
and the heart. It is as eloquent as language can be ; per- 
haps more so. The fact that the scriptures mention no in- 
stance of opposition made by the Jews against our Saviour 
and his disciples for excluding infants from the covenant, 
or from its seal, is manifestly indirect if not positive evi- 
dence, that they did not do so. Indeed, this silence proves, 
that malice itself could not find the least foundation upon 
which to build even a suspicion for such a charge against 
the blessed Redeemer and his inspired servants. (3.) The 
baptism of adults, ivho were before Jews or Gentiles, is fre- 
quently mentioned in the word of God. But not one instance 
is on record in that holy book, of a person being baptized in 
adult age, who was born of believing parents. No person 
can suppose that not one child of any believer was convert- 
ed by the power of the holy Spirit in nearly seventy years, 
the time which elapsed between the death of Christ and that 
of John the apostle. But if any of the descendants of pro- 
fessing christians, became communicants in adult age, then 
they must have been baptized in infancy or at the time they 
publicly professed their faith in Christ. But if they were 
baptized after they had grown up, where is the evidence ? 
The baptism of other adults is often mentioned. The bap- 
tism of the adult children of professed believers, is of as 
much consequence, at least, as that of heathen or Jews. 
Since the scriptures furnish no evidence that the adult chil- 
dren of professed believers were baptized, they thus indi- 
rectly teach that these, their offspring, had received that or- 
dinance in their infancy. (4.) The order of God's house 
indirectly teaches infant baptism. The professed disciples 
of Christ are to learn "all things" that he has "command- 
ed" in his word.* To do this is the business of their life. 
All that he has commanded cannot be learned in less time. 
As therefore they ought to be learners for life, so proper or- 
der requires that they should, in the morning of their days, 

Mat. 28: 20. 



Ch. 2, § 10.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 313 

be publicly recognized as his disciples or as those who are to 
learn from him. They can then in proper order, be taught 
whatever Christ requires them to learn. A person can, 
with propriety, be recognized as a learner from his earliest 
infancy. He may be discipled in the school of Christ as 
soon as he enters this world of sorrow.* He may continue 
in that school, unless his conduct proves that he is no learn- 
er. Then, and not till then, he ought to be excluded. But 
he who is publicly recognized as a visible disciple or learn- 
er of Christ, has been baptized, because it is in baptism that 
this public recognition takes place. (5.) The direction, 
li train up a child in the way he should go," indirectly teaches 
infant baptism. In what way ought the child to go ? From 
what way will he " not depart" when he is old ?f In this 
passage we are taught to look for the aged in the same way 
in which they were trained up from their earliest childhood. 
But to be baptized members of the visible church is a part 
of the way in which the aged ought to be found ; therefore 
into this part of it, as well as into others, they ought to be 
brought as soon as they can be ; or in other words, in their 
infancy. But to train up children in this part of the way in 
which they should go, they must be baptized. Besides, the 
baptismal covenant relation which, in infant baptism, is pub- 
licly recognized, throws a restraining influence around the 
childhood and youth of those who are baptized, which pre- 
serves them from falling into many a snare. The unbap- 
tized child is not therefore trained, up "in the way" in 
which " he should go." (6.) The Old Testament dispen- 
sation u-as not more favorable to children than that of the 
New is. No intimation of this kind is contained in the 
scriptures. But, as under the former dispensation, infants 
received the seal of the covenant, so must they also in New 
Testament times, unless the New Testament is less favora- 
ble to infants than the Old. But as this is not the case ; so 
therefore that infants in gospel times must be baptized, is 
thus indirectly taught. (7.) The fact that in New Testa- 
ment times, privileges are extended (a),\ indirectly teaches 
that infants are to be baptized. If privileges are extended 
in New Testament times, then, under the same dispensation, 

*See Mat. '28: 19 in Greek. tP'Ov. 22: 6. (a) See P. i, Ch. 3, § 19. {See Isa, 25: 
6. 7, Mat. 2S: 19. 20, Acts 9: 15 and 13: 46 and 22: 21 and 26: 17. 



314 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

they cannot be contracted. If believers under the gospel 
have more privileges than they had under the law, then they 
cannot at the same time have less. Believers in New Tes- 
tament times cannot have both more privileges and less than 
were enjoyed under the former dispensation. But parents 
formerly had the privilege of dedicating their infant seed to 
God. They had the privilege of applying the seal of the 
covenant to them. They could ask covenant blessings from 
their covenant God for them. J3ut if privileges are increas- 
ed and not diminished, extended and not contracted, in New 
Testament times, the parent may now apply the seal of the 
covenant to his infant seed. He may yet ask for them the 
covenant blessings of their covenant God. This privilege 
God has not taken from his people. It therefore, since it 
was once theirs, belongs to them yet. God, while he has 
extended the privileges of adults, has not taken away those 
of infants. They may therefore receive the New Testa- 
ment seal of the covenant. The fact therefore that the pri- 
vileges of the visible church are increased in New Testa- 
ment times, indirectly inculcates infant baptism. (8.) The 
fact that the apostles taught that parents "ought not to cir- 
cumcise their children" indirectly teaches infant baptism* 
If infants were not to be circumcised, then what was to be 
done for them ? Adults were not then to receive circumci 
sion as the seal of the covenant, any more than infants were, 
But what was to be done for adults who were not to be cir- 
cumcised ? They were to be baptized. Then what else 
was to be done for infants who were not to be circumcised ? 
The fact therefore that infants were not to be circumcised 
teaches indirectly that they were to be baptized 

Many circumcised persons did not, in their own persons, 
or in their descendants, inherit the land of Canaan. To Ish- 
mael and to his posterity, God gave Arabia. To Esau and 
to his descendants, he gave Mount Seir. But to neither of 
these, nor to any of their posterity, did God give any inher- 
itance in the land of Canaan. They were however all cir- 
cumcised. Circumcision was not therefore necessarily con- 
nected with the temporal blessings promised in the Abra- 
hamic covenant.! These were sure only to those with whom 

*See Acts 15: 1. '24. 23 and 21: 21. jSee Gen. 17: 20. 25 and 25: 16. 19 and 32: 3 and 
33: 16, Deut. 2: 12. 22. 29: 



Ch. 2, § 10.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 315 

the covenant was established.* Perhaps none will maintain 
that all circumcised persons enjoyed the spiritual blessings 
promised in the covenant. These were promised only to 
those who were or were to become interested in the atoning 
blood of Christ. But the unbelief and final impenitence of 
the wicked person who was circumcised, did not uncircum- 
cise him. His wickedness made him a covenant-breaker, 
and therefore destroyed his right to the promise. But it did 
not, could not, destroy circumcision, the seal of the covenant. 
Nor does the unbelief of a baptized person destroy his bap- 
tism. It makes him a covenant-breaker, and annuls his 
right to the promise of the covenant. But he does not there- 
by become unbaptized. His baptism still remains as a cov- 
enant seal Divinely appointed. 

Many circumcised persons did not eat the Passover. Cir- 
cumcision was in use more than 400 years before the Pass- 
over was instituted. f Those Hebrews who lived during this 
interval, did not, could not eat the Passover, for it had then 
no existence. But during all this time the descendants of 
Abram were circumcised. Infants who were circumcised on 
the eighth day after their birth, could not for some years at 
least, eat the passover.J It is manifest therefore that the 
same persons who were circumcised, were not at all times, 
and at every age, required to eat the Passover. But " no 
uncircumcised person' 7 might " eat thereof. "§ It may, from 
these facts, be inferred that baptized persons are not at all 
times and at every age, required to partake of the Lord's 
supper. It may also be inferred from these same facts, that 
no unbaptized person can, without great guilt, receive the 
ordinance of the holy supper. 

In all covenants entered into between God and man, in- 
fants have been included. Infants suffer death, the penalty 
threatened in the covenant made with Adam. In the cov- 
enant made with Noah, his " seed after" him are included. 
In that made with Abram, his " seed" are included. In the 
covenant made with Israel in the land of Moab, their " little 
ones" formed a portion of one of the parties. The covenant 
of grace embraces children ;|| and in all the covenants defi- 

*See Gen. 17: 19. fSpe Ex. 12: 40. 41, Gal. 3: 17. JSeo Gen. 17: 1% 2 Chron. 31: 16. 
§Ex. 12: 48. ||Gen . 2: 16. 17 and 9; 9 and 17: 7, Deut. 29: 1. 9. 11. 12. 14. 13, Jer. 32: 
39, Heb.8: 10.11. 



316 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

nitely mentioned as having been entered into between God 
and man, infants form a portion of one of the parties. There 
is no reason why this should not be the case. There is no 
danger of God making hard conditions with them. They 
are as dear to him as adults are. They may therefore, as 
well as others, be received into covenant with him. But as 
infants form a portion of one of the parties in all covenants 
into which God has entered with man ; so they are there- 
fore interested in that of which baptism is a seal ; and being 
in this covenant, they may, they ought to be, they must be, 
baptized. 

The convert to Judaism must " circumcise all his males." 
To be circumcised himself was not sufficient. The com- 
mand is positive ; " let all his males be circumcised."* A 
person was not allowed to enter the Jewish church and leave 
his children behind, " aliens from the commonwealth of Is- 
rael, and strangers from the covenants of promise."! But 
if he himself was permitted to enjoy the covenanted mercies 
of God, his children must not be left in an uncovenanted 
state. The convert to Judaism must, if he enter into cov- 
enant with God and his people, bring his children with him. 
He must apply the ** token of the covenant" to them. J If 
the convert to Judaism must bring his children with him, 
must the convert to Christianity be compelled to leave his 
dear little ones to the uncovenanted mercies of God ? Must 
he be compelled to part from his children when he enters in- 
to covenant with the God of Abram % No ; this cannot be, 
is the language of every feeling of humanity and of true re- 
ligion. Infants therefore ought to be baptized. From what 
is mentioned in this section, it is clear that the scriptures 
indirectly teach the doctrine of infant baptism. 

CHAPTER III. 

SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. The baptism of Israel in the cloud and in the sea, fur- 
nishes many examples of infant baptism. When the nation 
of Israel was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, it may 
have contained five millions of persons. It certainly con- 

*Ex.l2:48. tEph. 2: 12. JGen. 17: 11. 



Ch. 3, § 2.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 317 

tained more than half that number(a). That the nation of 
Israel like all other nations, included infants, is also an un- 
deniable fact(Z>). It is expressly stated that " they, 7 ' their 
"young," their "sons" and "daughters," their "little 
ones," their " children"* who " had no knowledge between 
good and evil," went out of Egypt and through the opening 
which God made in the sea. # These were all " baptized — 
in the cloud and in the sea" — for "examples" to New Tes- 
tament believers.f Even the Jews themselves, hardened as 
they are in unbelief, admit that their whole nation was bap- 
tized in the sea(c). In this nation, probably composed of 
five millions of persons, about one in five was an infant. 
Of infants and little children, this proportion is usually found 
in communities. About on fifth part of any civilized nation 
is in a state of infancy or early childhood. There were 
therefore in all probability in the whole nation of Israel, 
about one million of infants. In the baptism of the whole 
nation, about one million of infants were therefore baptized 
in the cloud, and about the same number in the sea. But to 
keep entirely within the limits of certainty on the subject, 
the whole number baptized in the cloud and in the sea, may 
be set down at two millions five hundred thousand. If of 
these only one in ten, instead of one in five, was an infant, 
then there would have been two hundred and fifty thousand 
infants baptized in the cloud, and the same number in the 
sea. It is manifest therefore that at least five hundred thou- 
sand infants were baptized in both the cloud and sea. Be- 
sides, it may be remarked that in all reasonable probability, 
there were one million of infants baptized in the cloud and 
the same number in the sea. This estimate would make the 
number of cases of infant baptism amount to about two mil- 
lions in all. Here are examples of infant baptism by the 
million for those who desire to attend to them. 

2. The examples of infants baptized by John are numer- 
ous. John baptized infants(d). He probably baptized not 
less than two millions five hundred thousand persons(e). If 
one in five of these was an infant, he then must have bapti- 
zed five hundred thousand infants. But if he baptized only 

(a) See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, § 5. (b) See Ch. 1, § 5. *Ex. 10: 9. 10. 24 and 13: 20 
and 14: 11. 12. 22, Num. 14: 31. 33, Deut. 1: 39. |1 Cor. 10: 2. 6. (e) See W. Wall, 
(d) See Ch. 2, § 4. (e) See B. ii, P. i, L h. 7, § 6. 



318 BIBLE BAPTISM, [b. IV, P. III. 

one million of persons, and only one in ten of these was an 
infant, even then he must have baptized one hundred thou- 
sand infants. That John baptized infants, is as definitely 
taught, as it is that he baptized adults. He baptized " Jeru- 
salem and all Judea," and " all the region round about Jor- 
dan.'** This language necessarily includes both infants and 
adults. Both, in every region of country, form together, 
the whole population. To say that God, in his word, uses 
language which necessarily mcludes infants, when he in- 
tends to exclude them, is what no christian will do. In John's 
baptism therefore, we have very many examples of infants 
who were baptized. 

Moreover, it may be observed that Ambrose, about the 
year 374, and Augustine about the year 390, both affirm 
that John baptized infants(a). That John baptized many 
infants is therefore manifest. 

3. Examples of infant baptism are required by the com- 
mission which Christ gave to his ministering servants. The 
standing command which it contains, is ; •• teach" or disci- 
ple " all nations, baptizing them(5).t The various nations 
of the earth at any one time embrace from six hundred to 
ten hundred millions of persons of all ages and of both sex- 
es. If one fifth part of these are infants then ihe world con- 
tains from one hundred and twenty to two hundred millions 
of infants ; and if only one in ten of the inhabitants of the 
globe is an infant, then there are at any one time on earth, 
from sixty to one hundred millions of infants. This com- 
mission contains a standing command to baptize all nations. 
These probably contain one hundred millions, and certainly 
not less than sixty millions of infants. Here therefore we 
have the standing command of Christ, which requires from 
sixty to a hundred millions of infants to be baptized. Here 
therefore are a multitude of examples of infant baptism. It 
may also be a fact that this command requires at least two 
hundred millions of infants to be this day baptized. When 
this command is completely obeyed, even in the external 
act, at least sixty millions of infants will be baptized in ev- 
ery age. This ministerial commission therefore embraces 
millions of examples of infant baptism. 

♦Mat. 3: 5. 6. (a) See W. Wall, (b) Sec Ch. 2, $ 5. fSeo Mat. 2f: 19 in GreeJc. 



Cll. 3, § 4, 5.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 319 

4. Examples of infant baptism are found, in the families 
which inspired men baptized. The commission by which 
they were authorized to administer christian baptism, re- 
quired them to baptize infants(a). They did not disobey the 
injunction which it contained. They baptized many fami- 
lies. Eight of these are named ; and many were evident- 
ly baptized, which are not expressly named(3). They bapti- 
zed "all" the "house" of Cornelius, — the house or "house- 
hold" of Lydia, the "house" — "all" the "house" of the 
Philippian jailer,* and many others. That these families 
included infants, is certain ; because a word (oixog) which 
primarily signifies infant children, is used for family in ev- 
ery instance where the baptism of the household is mention- 
ed. The Greek word (Vavojxj) which denotes all the house, 
the whole household is used in the Greek Old Testament, 
when infants, " little ones," the " sons' sons' 7 and the "sons' 
daughters" of Jacob are intended.! The same Greek word 
(<7favojxj) is used of the jailer's house or family which was 
baptized. As infants are certainly included when this word 
is used of Jacob's descendants ; so it must as certainly in- 
clude infants when it is used of the jailer's descendants. If 
it is said that infants are excluded from the word when it is 
used of the jailer's family, men of sense will ask at least a 
very little evidence to support the assertion. In this there- 
fore and in the other families the baptism of which is men- 
tioned in the word of God, we have more examples of in- 
fant baptism. To suppose one infant or little child to a fam- 
ily is not too great an average. The baptism of eight fam- 
ilies definitely mentioned as taking place after the resurrec- 
tion of Christ, furnishes therefore eight more examples of 
infant baptism to the millions already mentioned. Moreo- 
ver, it is probable that not less than eight thousand families 
were baptized, which are not definitely named in the word 
of God(6). These will give a probable increase of eight 
thousand more examples of infant baptism, for those who 
will not be satisfied with millions. 

5. An indefinite number of examples of infants having been 
baptized, is mentioned in the New Testament. Besides those 
already noticed, every individual, who is, in the New Tes- 

(a) See Ch. 2. $ 5. (b) See Ch. 2, $ 6. *Acts 10: 2. 47. 48 and 16; 14. 15. 31. 34 in 
Greek. tGen. 46: 5. 7, Ex. 1: 1 in Greek. 



320 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

tament, publicly recognized as a church member, must have 
been baptized. An indefinite number of publicly recogni- 
zed church members, and who must, as such have been bap- 
tized, are addressed by the appellation of (rsxvia) " little 
children."* This Greek word is a diminutive derived from 
another (texvov) which signifies a child, a young child, and 
sometimes a child unborn(a). This original word (tsxviov) 
must therefore denote a very little child and in the plural 
(rsxvia) very " little children.' 7 When therefore the Spirit 
of God by the apostle addresses an indefinite number of mem- 
bers in the " churches" in " Galatia"f by the expression 
"little children," more examples are thus furnished of in- 
fant baptism. These " little children" are addressed as pub- 
licly recognized church members and therefore as having 
been baptized. Here are some examples of infants or very 
"little children" having been baptized in apostolic times, 
and having been so recognized by inspired men. The num- 
ber of these examples cannot easily be determined ; nor is 
this a matter of great importance. 

The epistle to the Galatians was written about the year 
58, not far from 25 years after the resurrection of Christ. 
Galatia was a country of some considerable extent. In it 
during this 25 years, 40 or 50 or even 100 churches might 
have been planted by the apostles and other ministers of 
Christ. But if it contained only twenty churches, each em- 
bracing one hundred members ; then in the " churches of 
Galatia," there were, when the epistle was written to them, 
two thousand members. If one fifth part of these were "lit- 
tle children," as it is positively stated some of them were, 
then in these churches, there were five hundred u little chil- 
dren" who had been baptized; for these " little children" 
were addressed as publicly recognized or baptized church 
members. But the number of "little children" in these 
churches, could not well be less than one hundred. 

Moreover, John the apostle, in an epistle addressed to the 
churches in general, calls an indefinite number of their pub- 
licly recognized or baptized members, (rsxvia) " little chil- 
dren," and (iraiSia) young "children." But all these "lit- 
tle children," young "children" must have been baptized 

, *Ga'. 4: 19 in Gr. and En r . (a) See Ch. 2, § 7. tGa). 1: 2. 



Ch. 3, § 5.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 321 

or they could not have been publicly recognized as church 
members. These "little children 7 ' could not have been met- 
aphorical. This is manifest from the fact that they are men- 
tioned as composing one portion of the persons to whom he 
wrote ; while "young men" and " fathers" composed other 
portions of them.* He also mentions these "little children" 
between the " young men" and " fathers." The directions 
which he gives to them differ in some respects from those 
given to the other church members, t In this way, he pre- 
vents his plain language from being forced into a metaphor 
by those who would rather alter the word of God itself, than 
take it for a rule, when it does not correspond with their pre- 
viously conceived opinions. They cannot make these chil- 
dren metaphorical or figurative, unless they are determined 
to be self-deceivers. In this epistle therefore, the apostle 
John furnishes an indefinite number of examples of infants 
or " little children" who had been baptized ; for by baptism 
and by that only, could they be publicly acknowledged as 
members of the church in New Testament times. 

John wrote his first epistle about the year 90, nearly or 
quite 57 years after the death of Christ. At that date the 
number of members composing the visible church was pro- 
bably not less than five hundred thousand(a). If one fifth 
part of these were " little children," then when John ad- 
dressed his first epistle to the churches, they must have con- 
tained in all one hundred thousand " little children." But 
to keep entirely within the limits of certainty on this sub- 
ject, the whole number of publicly acknowledged church 
members may be set down at three hundred thousand. If 
only one in ten of these was a little child, then the whole 
number of " little children" who were publicly acknowledg- 
ed and therefore baptized, church members, must have been 
at least thirty thousand. The apostle John therefore fur- 
nishes an indefinite number of examples of infant baptism. 
This number could not be less than thirty thousand. He 
positively teaches that at least this number of infants or "lit- 
tle children" had been baptized. When therefore examples 
of infant baptism are called for, hundreds, thousands, mil- 
lions are at hand. 

*1 John 2: 1. 12-14. 18. 28 in Greek and En ? . 1 See 1 John 2: 12-14. (a) See Cb. % 

21 



322 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. III. 

6. The examples of infant baptism may be summed up. 
When this is done, the number of infants certainly and pro- 
bably baptized, as well as that of those to whom the ordi- 
nance is commanded to be administered, will be very great, 
Examples of lnjants certainly baptized ; 

In the cloud, 250,000 

In the sea the same, 250,000 

John baptized, 100,000 
Jesus Christ commands the baptism of 60,000,000 

In families certainly more than 8 

In Galatia, 100 

Addressed by John as being baptized, 30,000 

These amount to - 60,630,108 

Examples of Infants probably baptized ; 

In the cloud, 1,000,000 

In the sea the same, 1,000,000 

John baptized, 500,000 
Jesus Christ commands the baptism 

of 120,000,000 or 200,000,000 

In families probably more than 8,000 

In Galatia, 500 

Addressed by John as probably baptized, l,000,000(a) 

These amount to 122,608,500 or 202,608,500 

These examples of infant baptism will be sufficient to sat- 
isfy those who can be satisfied with the word ot God. But 
those who are not pleased with Divine instruction, will have 
to change " little children" into adults. They must also, 
by some new-coined legerdemain, banish infants from fam- 
ilies and nations. If they find this to be a task too difficult 
for their inventive genius, they might so re-model the scrip- 
tures as to leave out of their copies all those " infants" and 
*' little children" that now trouble their consciences so very 
much. What true believer in Divine revelation, can, after 
examining these examples of infant baptism so definitely 
recognized in the word of God, turn away and say ; there 
is no example of infant baptism mentioned in the scriptures'* 

<*) See for all these $ 1-5 



Ch. 3, § 6.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 323 

A person might, with equal propriety, deny that examples 
of adult baptism are recorded by inspired men(a). 

(a) In the year 1841, a little book entitled " Letters on Christian Baptism," appear- 
ed before the public. It was written by a Mr. Bliss. To those who read it with care, 
several things will be manifest. (1.) To them it will be evident that its author has ta- 
ken most of the names and dates contained in his work, from books of reference ; and 
that, for the principal part of what it contains besides, he has drawn on his own in- 
ventive powers. (2.) That the writer's knowledge is not too extensive, will also ap- 
pear evident. His whole book, with its frequent repetitions and, abounding as it does, 
with low words and phrases, proves that he is not, by any means, too well acquainted 
with the structure of the English language. Of the verb is, he says, (p. 100,) it is fu- 
ture. This writer who mistakes the present for the future tense of an English verb, 
asserts (p. 70,) that the grammatical construction of Acts 2: 39, shows that the promise 
which is there mentioned, is that of the Holy Ghost. He calls on men (p. 73.) to dis- 
prove his assertions. These few references to his book out of many which mi^ht be 
made, will show to those acquainted with those subjects that he is not overstocked with 
a knowledge of English grammar or with the principles of argumentation. It may al- 
so be remarked here that he does not condescend to prove or to attempt to prove, by 
proper evidence, any one of the assertions which he makes. 'I say so or some other 
person says so,' is the amount of proof by which he undertakes to sustain his various 
assertions. He does not appear to know the difference between question and test, sa- 
ved and "protected, in and under, baptize and immerse, &c. (p. 50. 171. 216.) He has 
made a number of left-handed attempts to correct the translation of the scriptures (p. 
46. 51. 52. 68. 100. 107. 108. 165. 171. 210-219.) These show that he can have but a mefe 
school-boy's knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. The word (fButfnt'u) for baptize, 
he repeatedly asserts, (p. 17. 171,) always denotes immerse. A little knowledge of 
Greek would have led him out of such a mistake, and would have taught him that the 
connection does not, in any passage of scripture, necessarily require immerse to be it? 
signification. He might easily have learned that classical" writers frequently use this 
word in such connections as to render it impossible for immerse to be its meaning. He 
might also have learned with a little study, that no word for immerse, no, not even one 
of those (svf5uw, £Vf5l>VW Or SV^UojXCu) which in Greek frequently denote to go 
under, is used to define or describe that ((BoLlfrtZu)} for baptize. He affirms (p. 68. 
108. 171,) that the word (sv) often and properly translated with, always signifies in, 
and he intimates that it conveys to the mind the idea of immersion. On this assertion 
see Luke 21: 23. 25. 34 and 23: 12 and 24: 30, John 2: 23 and 7: 11. 22. 23. 43. and 12: 20. 
Rom. 1: 4. 5 and 2: 24 and 5: 10. 21 and 6: 11. 23 and 8: 11 and 12: 7. 8. &c. in Greek and 
English. In each of these passages, this word (sv") is used. In some of them it evi- 
dently signifies with, in others at, in others on, among, by, <fec. The writer of said 
book, by his mode of altering the translation of the scriptures, might easily assert that 
the Jews made straw out of brick, that Jonah swallowed the whale, or that James killed 
Herod. Those who understand only the first principles of Latin, will easily perceive 
how much he knows of that language when they see that he gives (p. 90. 123. 153. 
159.) imperimus as the plural of imperium. His knowledge of military movements, of 
appointing officers, (p. 125. 127,) of high treason, (p. 158. 159,) and of history (p. 193- 
195. 199. 200. 105,) is about equal to his acquaintance with the learned languages, (3.) 
The untrue statements and misrepresentations which said book contains, are nnmer- 
ous and glaring. Out of the hundreds of these which are' found in it, only a very few 
can here be noticed. Some of these relate to the meanings which Greek Lexicons and 
other books give of the word f BoLlCTlYo)} f° r baptize, (p. 15-18. 210.) Others of 
them relate to the baptismal fonts and Episcopal ritual used in England, to the funda- 
mental articles of the English church, the Westminster Assembly, the reason why the 
Romanists persecuted the Waldenses, &c. (p. 31. 39. 41. 85. 194. 199.) These are on- 
ly a mere specimen of the incorrect statements which it contains. A very few of its 
assertions which all know or may easily know to be untrue will now be mentioned. 
Said book asserts that the Old School Presbyterians hold that the human soul is mate- 
rial, (p. 122;) that Baptists are not close communionists, (p. (2.2;) that John Calvin 
styles himself that famous, learned, godly man, (p. 168;) that those who baptiz? infants 
by sprinkling are perfectly cr^zy, (p. 152,) deranged, perfect maniacs, &.C. (p. 61-65. 9i. 
135;) that Papists say thdt infants have no souls till tljey are sprinkled, (p. 94;) that the 



324 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

PART FOURTH. 

HUMAN AUTHORITY IN FAVOR OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER I. 

EARLY CHRISTIANS ON INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. Early christian writers teach the doctrine of infant 
baptism. Those christians who wrote between the apostol- 
ic age and about the year 450 or 500, may be denominated 
early christian writers. An unbroken line of such writers 
will here be presented to the mind. They inculcate infant 
baptism. They begin before the death of John the apostle, 
and continue on till about the year 500 after Christ. (1.) 
Ignatius was born 12 years before the death of Christ. He 
says; " truly did I see him after his resurrection"(a). He 

(a) See Dr. Robert Bayfeild's Bulwark of Truth, p. 63, Newcastle Ed. 1604. 
Baptists have been persecuted in all ages, (p. 200. 205;) that books containing facts arc 
withdrawn irom those who grow up in the belief that infants ought to be baptized by 
sprinkling, (p. 98;) that all new sects sprinkle, (p. GO;) that Luther in his translation of 
the Dutch '1 estament (he probably means the German as this is the language into 
-which Luther translated the scriptures,) renders the word f >r baptism in every case by- 
one which signifies immersion and that alone, (p. 82) Sec. It may be remarked here, 
that in the German language, there are four words (tauchen, cintaucheu, untertauchen 
and verscuten,) which usually signify to immerse or to put under water or under some 
other substance. Luther, in his translation of the New Testament, does not, at any 
time, U3e these words, or any one of them, to denote baptize or baptism. He, for thi.s 
purp se, uses another word which has already been defined, (See B. ii, P. ii, Ch. 1, $3.> 
It may also be observed that it is a well known fact that the Mormons, Millerites, 
Chrystians, Campbellites, &.c. are ser-ts of very recent origin. People are also gener- 
ally aware that these all practice immersion and reject infant baptism. (4.) This said 
book contains rather fanciful views of christian character. Its writer charges those 
who baptize infants by sprinkling, with being guilty of treasonable crimes of the deep- 
est dye, of heaven-daring atrocities, of high treason against heaven, of dethroning and 
Tobbing God, of cheating Christ, of commit'nga vast amount of wickedness, of pi- 
ous frauds, swindling, rebellion, false and foul slander, &c. He calls them perfect 
fools, catspaws, immoral, profane, proud, deceptive, persecuting usurpers, &c. He de- 
clares that they are guilty of stealing in open day for the glory of God, of being as bad 
as sheep thieves, of practicing theft under the cloak of relipion, of lying, of witchcraft, 
of beirg ravening wolves, of felony, of the greatest heaven-daring" crime that can be 
committed, of deserving the punishment of death, of mot king Christ's ordinance, of 
laying snares and traps, of practicing stratagems, &c. He also declares that the con- 
duct of these persons has done more harm to the cause of religion than any device of 
satan. (p. 15. 26*28. 31. 36. 47. 02. 65. 73. 83. 00. 91. 95. 106. 110. 123. 129. 143. 152-150. 
15«. i8i. 200. 207.) It might be supposed that no human being after describing persons 
in such language as is here quoted, would pretend that they were any thing but the vi- 
lest of profligates. But this Mr. Pliability is such a liberal minded man and so easily 
bent from one thing to another, that, after" dealing out a large amount of language only 
a mere specimen of which is given here, calls these same persons whom he thus de- 
scribes, most iovely, excellent, honest, hearty, devoted, dear, fellow-christians ! ! ! '. 
(p. 64. 106. 117. 151. 192. 222.) He says they have pious, devoted, go.-d hearts ! ! ! ! (p. 
58. 62 117. 151.) He must certainly think that what he calls most lovely christians are 
the most odious wretches living, or he cannot believe his own assertions. If his fel- 
/oM-christians are such characters as he describes them to be, then it is certainly time 
for honest men to be on their guard. For giving such a book or its writer even this pas- 
sing notice, xn apology is dne to the reader. That some few immcrscrs may be deceiv- 
ed by it, is possible. The hope of saving them from such a delusion, is the' only apolo- 
gy tliat can be offered for writing this note. 



Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 325 

was martyred in the year 107, at the age of 86. (2.) Clem- 
ent of Rome, lived about the year 100. (3.) Polycarp was 
born in A. D. 67. He lived more than 30 years before 
John's death. Moreover, he was a disciple or scholar of 
that apostle. He suffered martyrdom when he was about 
100 years of age, in A. D. 167. (4.) Ireneus was born in 
the year 97. He was a disciple of Polycarp, and was his 
cotemporary about 70 years. What he declares will there- 
fore extend from the days of the apostle John till his own 
death, which occurred about the year 203. In the year 167, 
Ireneus says ; " infants, little ones, children, youth and per- 
sons of mature age, were re-born to God; that is, set apart 
to his service by baptism. 7 ' He again urges the propriety 
of infant baptism from the fact that Christ came to save u in- 
fants, little ones, children, youths," and " older persons." 
Moreover, he declares positively that " the church learned 
from the apostles to baptize infants"(a). This language 
puts the matter of infant baptism beyond dispute so far as 
his authority is concerned. Nor does any one of his cotem- 
poraries say aught against these, his positive declarations in 
favor of infant baptism. It is therefore manifest that none 
of them embraced the modern anti-pedobaptist notions(5) ; 
or rejected the doctrine of infant baptism. (5.) Justin Mar- 
tyr was born and lived sometime before the death of two or 
more of the apostles. This he himself teaches when he 
says he was a " disciple of the apostles." The word apos- 
tles certainly includes two or more. About the year 139, 
not far from 40 years after the death of the apostle John, he 
wrote an apology for the christians. He suffered martyr- 
dom in A. D. 163. He says ; " several persons among us — 
60 or 70 years old—were matheteusated" or discipled " in 
childhood." He here uses the same word which our Saviour 
employs in the commission to baptize, and which is transla- 
ted "teach.* (d). To say that they were discipled in child- 
hood is merely one way of saying they were baptized in 
infancy. But those persons who were 60 or 70 years of age, 
40 years after the death of John the apostle, must have been 
born about the year 70 or 80 ; that is, 20 or 30 years before 
John died. Here therefore this M disciple of the apostles," 

(a) Ad. Haeres B. 2, Ch. 39. W. Wall. (b)An anti-pedobaptist is one who oppo- 
ses infant baptism. *See Mat. 29: 19 in Greek. fe,)See Apol. 1, and Ske. Sect. No, 3. 



326 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

this martyr, positively teaches that infants were baptized at 
least 20 years before the death of the apostle John. (6.) 
Clement of Alexandria, was born about the year 120. He 
was for more than 20 years the cotemporary of Justin Mar- 
tyr. He also lived several years before Ireneus died. He 
wrote about the year 190. He also teaches the doctrine of 
infant baptism(a), though his language on this subject is not 
so definite as that of some other early writers. (7.) Ter- 
tullian was born about the year 147. He lived in Africa, 
and died about A. D. 230. He was the best Latin scholar 
of the age in which he lived. He was a cotemporary of Ire- 
neus for more than 50 years. He says u that our Saviour 
commanded little children to be baptized;' 7 — that " if either 
parent were a christian, the children were enrolled in Jesus 
Christ by baptism, " — that infants " are holy, because they 
are designed for holiness in baptism, the privilege of descent 
from a church member. 7 ' But notwithstanding these admis- 
sions, he advises the delay of infant baptism in certain cases. 
He even seems, in some expressions, to oppose the practice 
then universal in the church of baptizing infants. But 
whether he opposes infant baptism or advises the delay of it, 
he does not intimate that its origin was then recent or that 
it was not an apostolic institution(3). If it had been a hu- 
man invention, or at that time recently introduced, he cer- 
tainly would have mentioned both. He wrote not far from 
the year 200 and less than one hundred years from the 
death of John the apostle. A man of his learning must have 
been so well acquainted with the subject of baptism, on 
which he wrote, as to have known what was the practice of 
the christian church in relation to that ordinance for one or 
two centuries. But he admits that to baptize infants was the 
practice of the christian church in his day, and that it was of 
Divine origin. The very fact that he, in certain cases, advises 
its delay, shows that the practice did exist ; for no man would 
advise the delay of that which no person practiced. This, his 
testimony then is complete in favor of the fact that infant 
baptism was practiced in his day, and that its origin was 
Divine. (8. ) Origen was a presbyter of Alexandria. He 
was born about the year 175, and died at Tyre about the 

f<0See Pedag. B> 3, C. 11. (b)8ec Ter. on bap. C. 18, and his remarks on 1 Cor, 7 



Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 327 

year 250. He therefore lived with Tertullian about half a 
century, and with Ireneus nearly 30 years(a). He wrote 
about A. D. 212. He visited the churches planted by the 
apostles in Capadocia and Arabia, in Greece and Rome ; but 
he spent most of his life in Syria and Palestine. His father 
was a christian martyr. His grand-father also was a chris- 
tian. Being born about 75 years after the death of John the 
apostle, and about 8 or 10 years after Polycarp's martyr- 
dom, his father and grand-father must have been the cotem- 
poraries of Polycarp, and the latter at least must have lived 
part of his life with John. What therefore Origen declares 
as to matters of fact, will come to us almost like a message 
from the apostles sent by a special messenger. He declares 
that u the church received the injunction from the apostles to 
give baptism — to infants ;" — that " baptism is given to in- 
fants ;" — that "the custom of baptizing infants was received 
from Christ and his apostles"(5). Such language cannot be 
mistaken or perverted. (9.) Cyprian was born about A. D. 
180. He was the pastor of the church in Carthage in Afri- 
ca, and suffered martyrdom in the year 257 or 258. He 
was the cotemporary of Origen for about 70 years. He was 
president of a council of ministers which was held at Car- 
thage in A. D. 253, only three or four years before he suf- 
fered death for his religion. This council was composed of 
66 ministers, many of whom had suffered mutilation for the 
sake of Christ. Of the members of this council of martyrs, 
some had been deprived of an arm, some of a leg, some of 
an eye, some of an ear, some of the nose, &c. But there 
was scarcely one of them who had not been called to suffer 
for Christ as well as to believe in him. Fidus the pastor of 
a church near Carthage, desired this council to say whether 
an infant might or might not be baptized before the eighth 
day after its birth. He had supposed that an infant, only 
two or three days old, ought not to be baptized. His opin- 
ion seems to have been that its baptism should be deferred till 
it had become at least eight days old. But this council unan- 
imously decided that an infant might be baptized before the 
eighth day after its birth(c). In the mind of Fidus or in the 

(a)Some p'ace his birth and death a few years earlier and some a few years later 
than the dates hpre siven. (b)See his Horn. 8 on Lev. C. 12; Horn, on i ufce C. 14; 
Com. on Rom. B 5." (c) See Let. 66 to Fidas, See also Miller on baDtisra, p. 21-31 ; 
Milner's Eccl. Hist. v. i, p. 401: Marsh's Eccs. Hist. 



328 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

minds of the members of this council, no doubt existed as to 
the propriety of infant baptism. All its members, without 
hesitation, admitted that infants ought to be baptized. The 
only question for the council to decide was this ; may in- 
fants, or may they not, be baptized before the eighth day af- 
ter their birth ? This point was easily decided and the de- 
cision was unanimous. This council sat about 150 years af- 
ter the death of John the apostle. Their mutilated bodies 
bore testimony to the sincerity of their faith. The time in 
which they lived and their number shows that they must have 
known what the practice of the church then was, and what 
it had been from the apostolic age. This council therefore 
teaches unanimously that it was then, and always had been, 
the practice of the christian church to baptize infants. (10.) 
Ambrose was born about the year 245, and died about the 
year 335(a). He wrote about the year 270 or 280. He 
says ; " the baptism of infants was practiced by the apos- 
tles," — and again "infants — are baptized 7? (o). This lan- 
guage clearly teaches the fact that in his day infants were 
baptized. (11.) Gregory Nazianzen was born about the 
year 330, and wrote about the year 360. He, in some of 
his writings, advises that the baptism of healthy children be 
delayed till they are about three years old. But in others 
he teaches the contrary. He says ; " hast thou an infant 
child ? let him be dedicated from his cradle." He also teach- 
es that Bazil was baptized in infancy. Moreover, it may 
be observed that in the case of his own children, he delayed 
their baptism till they were nearly or quite threft years of 
age. But both he and Tertullian, whenever they mention 
this subject, insist that weakly infants should be baptized at 
an early day after their birth ; though they advised, forcer- 
tain reasons which they supposed to be prudential, that the 
baptism of others should be delayed. Both these men there- 
fore prove that it was the practice of christians in their day 
to baptize infants. (12.) Optatus, about the year 360, Ba- 
zil, about the year 370, Sericius, about 384, Jerome, about 
390, Paulinus, about 393, and Theodoret, about 440, all 
teach that infant baptism was practiced in their day. (13.) 
Chrysostom was born in the year 354, and died in A. D. 407. 

a few- years later than these dates. (b)See his com, on Luke 






Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 329 

He became pastor of the church in Constantinople in the 
year 398, nine years before his death. He says of baptism, 
a person may receive it "in the very beginning of his age; 77 
and of " those — baptized 7 ' on a certain occasion, he says ; 
"some of them were infants." Moreover, he affirms ; "our 
circumcision, I mean — baptism, gives cure without pain* 
and this to infants as well as men." He also teaches that 
" the church — every where declared that infants should be 
baptized ;" and to a person he says ; " thou wast an infant 
when thou wast baptized." Besides all this, in a public ser- 
mon, he " urged the duty of infant baptism"(a). Chrysos- 
tom is therefore very pointed and full in favor of infant bap- 
tism. (14.) Augustine was born about the year 330, was 
converted to Christianity about the year 354, and died about 
the year 420. He became pastor of the church at Hippo 
in Africa, about A. D. 398. He declares ; "a little while 
ago when I was at Carthage, I — heard — some people — say- 
ing that infants were not baptized for the remission of sins, 
but they were baptized that they may be sanctified in Christ." 
Here the fact that infant baptism was the common practice 
of the church is mentioned as that which was universally 
known and admitted. He also affirms that infant baptism 
was not instituted by councils but was always in use ; — he 
mentions " baptized infants ;" — he says ; " the custom of — 
the church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded;" — 
the Pelagians(fr) '* grant that infants must be baptized ;" 
and he also positively declares that he " never heard or read 
of any christian, catholic or sectarian, who did not hold that 
infants were to be baptized." He might well make this re- 
mark, because in the age in which he lived, no one had de- 
nied infant baptism ; and only two had then maintained that 
in certain cases, it ought to be, or might be delayed(c). 
Thus this great opposer of Pelagianism in its origin clearly 
teaches the doctrine of infant baptism. Augustine, in more 
than a thousand passages in his writings, teaches infant bap- 

(a)See Horn. 40 on Gen. and Horn. 23 on the Acts, &c. Fonda p. 95. (<i,)These 
were the followers of Pelagius. He was an unprincipled heretic. He wrote about the 
year 410. M hen it was said that his doctrines militated against infant baptism, he 
declared tha' though he h-d visited almost every part of Christendom, he had never so 
much as "heard" of "any — heretic" who was so "ignorant" and "impious as to hinder 
infants from being baptized " Even Pelagius, that arch impostor, calls the denial of 
infant baptism "impious! !" See his Let. to Inno. against Ang.; his work on Orig 
Sin C. 17. (c)tiee his work on Bap. B. 4. C. 23: Epist. 28. 57; on sin. &c. 0,26; Again3t 
Pela. B. 3, C. 10; On Gen. B, 10, 



330 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

tism(a). Such an amount of authority is truly irresistible. 
(15.) Epiphanius, in the year 370, quotes the u Apostolic 
Constitutions." The author of these is not known. But 
the statements which they contain show the practice of the 
christian church in the fourth century. These, as quoted by 
Epiphanius, say ; " baptize your children.' 7 By these an- 
cient christian writers the practice of baptizing infants is 
traced in an unbroken historical line from before the death 
of some of the apostles, till the beginning of the fifth cen- 
tury. 

Moreover, it may be observed here, that Ireneus, about 
the year 176, wrote an account of all the professedly chris- 
tian sects which had sprung up between the death of Christ 
and his own time. Epiphanius, who wrote about the year 
370, describes eighty sects of professing christians. "These 
he says, are " all the sects of christians that" he had "ever 
heard of in the world." Austin or Augustine, about the 
year 400, mentions eighty-eight sects ; and Philostrius, 
shortly after this, enumerates one hundred different sects. 
He made a sect out of the least difference of opinion about 
any trifling matter. Theodoret wrote his account of here- 
sies about the year 430. It is a very " learned, methodical, 
particular and full" treatise on this subject. But in no one 
of these catalogues, is there to be found the least intimation 
of any (except such as denied water baptism altogether,) who 
did not hold to the baptism of infants as a Divine institu- 
tion. 7 '' In " all these catalogues, the differences of opinion 
which" existed " in primitive ages" on the subject of bap- 
tism, "are particularly mentioned" and carefully described. 
But however much they differed in other respects, they all 
held to infant baptism as an ordinance of God's appointment. 
None, who believed in baptism with water, denied or pre- 
tended to doubt that infant baptism was a Divine institution. 
Such facts as these, speak a language which, one would sup- 
pose, might make an impression on the mind even of an im- 
merser(&). 

2. Children were recognized as baptized church members 
in both the Greek and Latin churches. By both they are 
frequently said to be " holy" and " faithful." These words 
are, in the scriptures, used of church members(c). When 

fa)See W. Wall. (b)See Eells on Bap. p. 41. 42. (c)See P. iii, Ch. 1, $ 7. 



Ch. 1, § 3.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 331 

therefore, early christians, in both the Greek and Latin 
churches, in speaking of the infant children of believers, use 
concerning them, the same words which they and the scrip- 
tures use of adult church members ; no evidence can be 
more conclusive than this is, that they considered them as in 
visible covenant relation with God as really as their parents 
were. But if they viewed them as being in covenant, they 
must in consistency, have viewed them os being entitled to 
the ordinance of christian baptism, if it had not been admin- 
istered to them(a). 

The baptism in adult age of any descendant of parents 
who were professed believers, does not appear on the page 
of early ecclesiastical history. The case of Constantine the 
Great, who was baptized just before his death, is not an ex- 
ception ; because his father was not a christian but a heathr 
en. 

3. Commemorative inscriptions show that the early chris- 
tians baptized infants. A considerable number of these have 
been examined(Z>). Only a very few need be noticed here. 
(1.) "Posthumius," was "a believer" who "lived six 
years"(c). A word which describes church members, is 
here applied to a child six years old. He is called a believ- 
er or a faithful. He was therefore a publicly recognized or 
baptized church member. This inscription is not dated ; 
but the symbol in early Greek characters(fZ), placed above 
and on the left side of it, shows that its date could not have 
been much if any later than the year 150. (2.) " Here lies 
Zosimus a believer, descended from ancestors who were be- . 
lievers. He lived two years one month and twenty-five 
days." This child could not possibly be any thing more 
than a ritual believer, or a baptized church member. (3.) 
" Leopardus rests here in peace with holy spirits ; — he re- 
ceived baptism" and " lived seven years and seven months." 
This monumental inscription was written about the year 
290. (4.) " Achillia, newly baptized(e), is buried here. 
She died at the age of one year and five months." (5.) 

(a)See Fabrittius. (b)By Fabrittius, Maratorius, Arringhius, and others. (c)The 
word believer must here be descriptive of church-membership. (cOThis is JX©C 
which denotes a fish. The last character is not used by the later Greek writers, (c) 
The Greek word is VSOtpwrog . It denotes recently planted or received into the 
christian faith by baptism. 



332 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

u Maureutius — lived five years eleven months and two days." 
He was " worthy to repose in peace among holy persons." 
(6.) " Cervonia" is "gone" to enjoy happiness "with holy 
spirits." This inscription is dated A. D. 291. (7.) "Julia 
reposes in peace among holy persons"(a). The words holy 
and in peace indicate that these three last named children 
were baptized church members. (8.) " Cyriacus, a believ- 
er, died" when he was " eight days less than three years of 
age." (9.) *' Polichronio, a believer — lived three years." 
(10.) " Urcia Florentina, a believer — lived five years eight 
months and eight days." (11-) " Rufillo, newly baptized — 
lived two years and forty days." (12.) "Domitius, newly 
baptized — lived three years and thirty days." (13.) The 
son of Vilerius — " newly baptized — lived three years ten 
months and fifteen days." (14.) w Pisentus — lived one year 
eight months and thirteen days." He was " newly bapti- 
zed." (15.) " Jovius — lived six years ten months and nine- 
teen days." He was " newly baptized." (16.) " Aristus — 
lived eight months." He was "newly baptized." (17.) 
" Libna — lived eight years." She was " newly baptized." 
(18.) "Flavia Jovina — lived three years and thirty-two 
days. 7 ' She was ** newly baptized. 77 This inscription is 
dated A. D. 367. (19.) " Two brothers — newly baptized — 
lived eight years two months and six days ;" also, "Justus, 
a believer — lived seven years. 7 ' This is dated A. D. 394. 
(20.) " Pascasius lived six years and received baptism." 
This child died in the year 463( b). These are a few of the 
inscriptions on the tombs of infants and children. They 
are much abbreviated. Only the age of the child and its bap- 
tism are mentioned. They speak a language that cannot 
be misunderstood. They teach that, at the time of their 
dates, infant baptism was practiced in the christian church. 
The testimony of these inscriptions comes to us like a voice 
from the unseen world. Infant baptism must have been 
practiced at the time of their dates ; for if it had not been, no 
parent or friend would have written such inscriptions. Thou- 
sands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of the infant children 
of christian parents, of whom no memento is preserved, 
must have died in the early ages of the church. Of those 
concerning whom some memorial remains, very few com- 

fc^TIiis inscription is in Greek. (b)See Taylor on Baptism. 



Ch. 1, § 4. J INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 333 

paratively, have been examined. But the testimony of these 
few in favor of infant baptism, is pointed, plain, convincing, 
unanswerable. 

4. Later ecclesiastical writers teach infant baptism. Not 
one writer from and after the year 360, so much as advises 
the delay of infant baptism, till about the year 1140. About 
the year 200, Tertullian who supposed that sins committed 
after baptism were nearly or quite unpardonable, did, for 
that and several similar reasons which he called prudential, 
advise the delay of this ordinance in certain cases. For the 
same reasons, he held that healthy youths should delay their 
baptism till after their marriage. But notwithstanding this 
notion, he maintained that unhealthy infants and all who 
were not expected to live long, should, by all means, be bap- 
tized. About the year 360, Gregory, though for different 
reasons, advises the delay of infant baptism, till children 
should arrive at the age of about three years(a). This de- 
lay, it is said, he practiced in the case of his own children. 
But. not one writer whose works have, in any form, reached 
the present day, either opposed infant baptism, or advised its 
delay, for more than 750 years after A. D. 360. All who 
mention the subject during this interval, speak in favor of 
infant baptism. Moreover, to baptize infants, is frequently 
mentioned as the universal practice of the christian church. 
All the christian writers therefore in the whole christian 
world for more than 750 years from and after the year 360, 
teach the doctrine of infant baptism. And before that year, 
all inculcated the same doctrine ; because even the two who 
advised its delay in particular cases, were in favor of it un- 
der other circumstances. The first professing christians 
who opposed infant baptism, were a small sect which origi- 
nated in the year 1110, and continued till about the year 
1150(6). This sect rejected infant baptism, because those 
who composed it, imagined that infants could not be saved. 
For more than 350 years after these few followers of Peter 
De Bruys dwindled away and disappeared, no one opposed 

Ca)See § 1, Nos. 7. 11. ^Tliis was a small sect which arose in France among the 
Walden3es. They were called Petrobrussians after Peter De Bruys, their founder. They 
were also called Henricians after Hen y the disciple of Peter. He led them for a time 
after the death of their founder. This sect was very small. They held that infant? 
could notbe saved. On this ground they refused to baptize them. The YValdcnses 
as a body, rejected the notion of the Petrobrussian?. After Henry's death, this lit- 
tle sect soon disappeared. 



334 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

infant baptism. All who mention it, speak in its favor, and 
represent it as the universal practice of the visible church. 
The true church then was and had been for centuries before, 
among the Waldenses, Albigenses, &c, who resided in the 
south of France, in the north of Italy, and were scattered 
more or less in the neighboring countries. For more than 
a thousand years after the death of Christ, not one writer of 
any description, whose works have reached our day, has in- 
timated in any form of words, that infants were not to be 
baptized(a). Every writer who mentions this subject during 
all this time, teaches that infants ought to be baptized. Even 
Tertullian and Gregory teach this doctrine. Jn the year 
1524 or 1525, the German Anabaptists commenced their 
outrages against all law, all true religion, all morality(5). 
For three or four years before this date, they had manifest- 
ed something of the spirit of anarchy. About the year 1538, 
these ignorant, lawless, licentious fanatics, came forward 
and, in the face of the christian world, rejected infant bap- 
tism. From that time till the present day, infant baptism 
has been rejected by many immersers, by quakers, &c, and 
it has been advocated and practiced by all other professing 
christians. The later writers therefore on ecclesiastical 
matters, clearly teach that the church has been accustomed 
to baptize infants from the days of the early fathers till our 
own time. 

In this chapter an unbroken historical chain has been pre- 
sented to the reader's mind. No link has been omitted. This 
historical evidence commenced before the death of John the 
apostle. It extends till the year 1844. During the first 
eleven hundred years after the death of Christ, not one wri- 
ter opposes infant baptism as such. And during these eleven 
centuries, only two writers advised its delay in certain cases. 
All who wrote in relation to the subject, gave it their appro- 
bation as of Divine origin. More than eleven hundred years 
after the death of our Saviour, a little sect arose which con- 
tinued for a few years and then ceased to exist. This sect 
denied baptism to infants on the ground that, in the nature 
of things their salvation was impossible. The baptism of 
infants met with no other opposition till more than fifteen 

(a)See Ch. Ob. Eells on Bap. p. 4-2. (b) See B. ii, P. iv, Ch. 2, $ 3 ; Ridley's body 
of Divinity ; Reed's Apology ; Dr. Wall ; Fonda p. 97, 88. 



Ch. 2, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 335 

hundred years after the birth of Christ. Then the German 
Anabaptists arose. These wild fanatics strenuously opposed 
infant baptism. For more than eleven hundred years, the 
whole voice of history decidedly teaches that infants ought 
to be and were baptized. This voice then is for a moment 
opposed by a mere whisper from a little sect that very soon 
died away. History, after this slight interruption, continues 
to speak on as before in favor of infant baptism, till it was 
again interrupted by the Anabaptists in Germany about the 
year 1538. Since that date the history of infant baptism is 
too well known to need a passing remark. None can care- 
fully examine this unbroken chain of historical evidence 
from before the death of John the Apostle, till this day ; and 
then hesitate for a moment to believe that the christian 
church has from the apostles down, uniformly practiced in- 
fant baptism. 

CHAPTER II. 

MODERN CHRISTIAN WRITERS ON INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. All Pedobaptist writers of any note teach the doctrine 
of infant baptism. These are numerous. Many of them 
are learned and devoted to the cause of Christ. Among 
them are many whose self-denying exertions in building up 
the Redeemer's kingdom, ought, at least to silence the boast- 
ing of immersers in relation to cross-bearing. A few of 
these writers besides those already mentioned as being in fa- 
vor of sprinkling as a mode of baptism(a) may here be no- 
ticed^). Those named in the note exceed seventy in num- 
ber. They are only a specimen of those who might be men- 
tioned as the advocates of infant baptism. Indeed, if there 
is a single Pedobaptist writer who rejects infant baptism or 
who states that sprinkling is not a mode of baptism, im- 
mersers ought to mention his name. They ought to quote 
his own language. They ought to refer to the page in his 

(a) See B.iii, P. ii, Ch.2, § 4. (b) These are Usher, Wardlaw, Hall, Jer. Taylor, 
J. Brown, Ewing, Dick, Stillingfleet, Hammond, Pearson, Barrow, Till'tson, Prideaux, 
Pocock, South, Burnet, Whitby, Beveridge, Berkley, Butler, Lowth, Seeker, Newton, 
Buchanan, Glass, Fleming, Halyburton, Boston, McLawrin, Longley, Jenkins, the Ers- 
kines, Austin, Robertson of Edinburgh, Watson, Lye, Poole, Hunt, Chester, Beza, 
Knight, Walker, I'rofessor Campbell, Blair, Robison, Calvin, Luther, Baxter, Owen, 
Mead, Flavel, R. Franklin, Howe, Watts, Tate, Brady, S. Clark, Ridgeley, Evans, Cal- 
amy, Thompson, Van Vr;mken, Neal, Blaike, Eells, Lowman, Morton, Lardner, Win- 
ter, Stafford, Jay, Romaine, S. S. Smith, Brownlee, Pressly, &c. 



336 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

book where such statements are found. The very expres- 
sion should then be pointed out. Till this is done, all their 
intimations, hints or assertions, that Pedobaptist writers fa- 
vor their exclusive claims, must, with intelligent men, pass 
for — nothing. Pedobaptist writers constitute a "great cloud 
of witnesses" in favor of infant baptism. Hundreds, nay 
thousands of them are pious, talented, learned, biblical schol- 
ars. Their testimony therefore deserves as much confidence 
as it is proper to give to human authority. It might claim 
too, it would seem, as much confidence as the unsupported 
assertions of less than one fiftieth part of their number of 
men who, not unfrequently, exalt ignorance to the station 
of a religious teacher. If this matter was to be decided by 
the weight of human authority, and impartiality was to give 
the decision ; it is at least possible that the opinion of a hun- 
dred men of learning and piety, would be worth as much as 
the bare assertion of one or two immersers whose superior 
knowledge and piety, to say the least, might well be ques- 
tioned. Pedobaptist writers on this subject present an amount 
of evidence which no wise man will treat with supercilious 
disrespect. Few human beings will be found so opinionated, 
so self-conceited, as to answer with a sneer, such an array 
of piety and learning as is presented to the mind by those 
who have written in favor of infant baptism. All Pedobap- 
tist writers of any note, and perhaps the whole of them of 
every description, uniformly maintain that the word of .God 
teaches the doctrine of infant baptism. Their piety, their 
learning, their self-denying devotion to the cause of Christ, 
their numbers, place them on an eminence which sneers can- 
not reach. A sneer therefore when used as a substitute for 
evidence must fall, like a poisoned arrow, on the head of 
him by whom it is employed. 

(2.) Councils, Synods and Assemblies teach infant bap- 
tism. Those which have been mentioned as holding that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism(a), also hold and teach the 
doctrine of infant baptism. Besides these, every council, 
synod or assembly of any notoriety, which met in all the 
christian world before, and indeed long after the year 1538, 
taught, when they mentioned the subject, that infants ought 
to be baptized. Only a very few of these need be specially 

(a) See B. iii, P. ii, Ch. 3, § 3. 



Ch. 3, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 337 

named. Several ancient councils inculcate infant baptism. 
One of these met in Carthage in A. D. 253 ; another in 
400 ; another in 401 ; and one of them met at Rome in A. 
D. 402. These and many other ancient councils teach in- 
fant baptism, and often mention it as the universal practice 
of the church(a). Moreover, besides these, the ecclesiasti- 
cal assemblies of the different denominations in modern 
times, except a very few, all teach or take for granted the 
doctrine of infant baptism. The synod of Dort taught that 
" infants of believers" — " ought to be baptized"(Z>). The 
Westminster assembly assert that "the infants of such as are 
members of the visible church are to be baptized"(c). The 
general assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United 
States (d), the general synod of the Reformed Dutch 
church (e), and the judicatories of the other Pedobaplist 
churches, teach by their minutes, that infants ought to be 
baptized(jf). The Congregational churches may also be 
specially mentioned as holding to infant baptism. This they 
pointedly teach in their Platform^). The minutes and pub- 
lic documents of these ecclesiastical assemblies, furnish a 
host of writers who stand as the representatives of thou- 
sands and millions of professing christians for whom they 
write. It is manifest from what has been said in this chap- 
ter, that multitudes of writers of the first order, both in their 
individual capacity and as representatives of ecclesiastical 
bodies, clearly inculcate the doctrine that to baptize infants 
is a duty required in the word of God. 

CHAPTER III. 

DENOMINATIONS ON INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. Almost all denominations of professing christians in- 
culcate infant baptism. This they do both by precept and 
example. In the world there are not less than 175 millions 
of persons who profess to believe in Christ. The Romanists, 
at least 80 millions in number, all in profession baptize in- 
fants. Not less than 30 millions of persons who are mem- 
bers of the Greek church, both by precept and example, in- 
culcate what they call infant baptism. The authority of 

(a) See Mosheim, Wall, Marsh, Milner, &c. (b)$ee Con. Fes. Art. 34. fc;See 
Shorter Cat. duest. 95. (d)See Min. for 1812. (e)3ee Min. for 1804-1814-1810-1817- 
(f)See their Min. (g)8ee Ch. 12, § 7. 

22 



333 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, T. IV. 

these is of little moment; as they do not, even in profession, 
take the word of God as their only rule in all religious du- 
ties. But of more than 65 millions of protestants, all except 
about two millions hold to infant baptism. About one mil- 
lion of professed protestants entirely reject baptism with wa- 
ter ; and about the same number who are not Romanists or 
of the Greek church, and who profess to believe in this or- 
dinance, reject infant baptism. The denominations which 
have been already mentioned as holding to sprinkling as a 
mode of baptism(a), all maintain that to baptize infants is a 
duty required in the scriptures of truth. Moreover, it ought 
to be remembered that a large portion of these protestants 
are christians who require their religious teachers to be thor- 
oughly educated men ; while immersers of every name, 
very frequently place ignorance in the pulpit to teach men 
44 to observe all things" which Christ has ''commanded" in 
the holy scriptures.* 

2. The christians of St. Thomas teach the doctrine of in- 
fant baptism. They inhabit the southern part of Hindoostan. 

Some of them were found there as early as the year 189. 
They had Matthew's gospel in the Hebrew language. This 
they received, as they affirm, from Bartholomew one of the 
apostles t In the fourth century a number of christians from 
Antioch in Syria, being driven from their own country by 
persecution, took up their abode in Hindoostan. These and 
the christians who had then with their predecessors, been, 
inhabitants of the country for about two hundred years, soon 
became amalgamated. These became known to Europeans 
in the fifteenth century. Till then they had never heard of 
any professed christian who denied infant baptism. They 
themselves had always baptized infants. They trace their 
origin to Thomas the apostle(&). This denomination, not 
only teach infant baptism, but they also maintain that it ori- 
ginated in apostolic times. 

3. The Sabian christians of Syria teach infant baptism. 
These call themselves disciples of John or Daily Baptists. 
They baptize their children when they are "forty days old." 
They say that John the Baptist, on ordinary occasions, stood 
44 on dry ground" when he baptized. They do not baptize 

fa)See B. hi. P. ii, Ch. 3, $2. *.Mat. 23: 20. fMat.10:3. (b)See Eusebius; Buch. 
vol. 4, p. 215 Phil. Ed. 1315; Fonda p. 96. 97; Sket. of Sect. No 3. 



Ch. 3, § 4.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 339 

in the name of the Trinity. Theirs is not therefore chris- 
tian baptism.* They immerse three times. This three-fold 
immersion, they call one baptism(a). As they baptize chil- 
dren at the age of forty days, their authority is decidedly in 
favor of infant baptism. But their authority is of but little 
value as they are professedly the disciples of John the Bap- 
tist, and not of Christ. 

4. The principles of those who baptize none but adults 
prove that infants ought to be baptized. They admit, as a 
principle, that those who are truly regenerated by the power 
of the holy Spirit, may be baptized. If those who are born 
again, converted, baptized with the Holy Ghost, sanctified and 
fit for heaven, may not be baptized ; it is difficult, if not im- 
possible to conceive who may receive that ordinance. But 
if the truly regenerated may be baptized, then infants may 
be baptized ; because infants have been and may again be 
made the subjects of the renewing grace of God. They 
have been and maybe "sanctified,' 7 and "filled with the 
Holy Ghost" in his regenerating influences from their ear- 
liest infancy.! Littl© children then must be baptized ; for 
they, by the renewing power of the Spirit, have been prepared 
for heaven. £ But since those who are the subjects of God's 
converting grace may be baptized, then infants may receive 
this ordinance ; for in their souls, the Holy Spirit has produ- 
ced, and may again produce the principles of the christian 
graces and affections. If all infants dying in infancy are 
new-created in Christ Jesus,§ then certainly infants ought to 
be baptized. They are guilty of no heresy in principle or 
in practice on account of which they can with propriety be 
excluded from that holy ordinance. 

Uninspired men cannot tell what infants are regenerated, 
nor can they tell what adults are truly born of God. But 
if they may baptize adults without knowing certainly that 
they are the true children of God ; they certainly may, on 
the same principle, baptize infants without knowing certain- 
ly that they are or have been the objects of the renewing 
grace of the Spirit. If an adult professes to be a christian 
when he is not, he is uttering a solemn falsehood. To be 

*See Mat. 2»: 19. 20, and B. i, P. iv, Oh. 1, $ 6. (a)See Taylor's Apostolical Bap- 
tism, t Jer. 1: 5, Luke 1. 15. JSee 2 Sam. 12: 22. 23, 1 Kings 14: 1. 3. 12. 13, 2 Tim. 
3: 15. -jSee Eph. 2: 10, 2 Cor. 5: 17. 



340 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. IV. 

guilty of such a heinous sin, even an immerser would scarce- 
ly say, was essentially necessary in him who would receive 
the ordinance of baptism. Few persons would be willing to 
say that to utter a positive untruth in the most solemn way 
was really necessary to the validity of baptism with water. 
But if to do so is not essential to baptism, then an infant who 
says nothing may be baptized while destitute of the renew- 
ing grace of God, as truly as an adult who professes to be 
born "of the Spirit" when he is not. The very principles 
therefore of those who baptize none but adults, prove that in- 
fants who are or may be born again, ought to be bapti- 
zed no less than adults who are or may be born again. 
Such persons must therefore baptize infanls or prove recre- 
ant to their own professed principles. They, to be consis- 
tent, must baptize infants, or deny that they are or may be 
regenerated, or deny that the truly regenerated may be 
baptized. If the regenerated may be baptized, and if infants 
are or may be regenerated, then infants may be baptized. 

It may also be remarked that in former days when Pela- 
gianism and Arminianism, under the names of Popery and 
Prelacy, threw their withering blight over most of Christen- 
dom, and were drunk "with the blood of the saints ;"* then 
nearly fifty millions of these " baby-sprinklers," as they are 
often contemptuonsly called, laid down their lives rather than 
relinquish any portion of their religion. More believers in 
infant baptism have suffered martyrdom, than would far out- 
number all those who have ever practiced the immersion of 
adults only. The whole of these, as given in history, would 
by no means equal or come near doing so, the number of 
those " baby-sprinklers" whose souls have been forced by 
the cruel hand of persecution to quit their tabernacles of 
clay. The testimony of so many hundreds of millions of 
christians as have, in different ages of the church, taught 
and practiced infant baptism, — the testimony of so many mil- 
lions of martyrs as have testified in favor of this same truth, 
is authority which cannot easily be resisted. No man of 
sense or piety will attempt to treat with contempt the prin- 
ciples and practices of such an assemblage of christians, — 
of such an army of martyrs(u). 

*Rev. 17: 6. (a) It may be proper to remark here that Mr. W. Jones, an English- 
man has written what he calls " The History of the Christian Church." A portion of 



Ch. 1, § 1.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 341 

PART FIFTH. 

IMPORTANT MATTERS CONNECTED WITH INFANT BAPTISM. 

CHAPTER I. 

WHAT INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED. 

1. Parents who are in covenant are bound to have its seal 
applied to their children. God commands parents who are 
not in covenant to enter it and receive its seal. He also 
commands those who have received the seal of the covenant 
to apply it to their children(«). If the parent has been bap- 
tized, believes all the truths of God's word, manifests his love 
to these by obeying the Divine requirements in an orderly 
walk and a conversation becoming the gospel ; then charity 
requires that he should be viewed as being in a truly con- 
Co; See P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1, par. 6. 
his book might, with propriety, be called an anti-Pedobaptist misrepresentation of 
facts in relation to the mode and subjects of baptism. In America, immersers have al- 
tered the word of God to make it correspond, in some measure, to their system. In 
England, they, by their historian, have, for the same purpose, falsified church history. 
They have, on one side of the Atlantic, laid unholy hands upon the Bible and altered 
God's book. On the other side of it, they have perveited the records of God's people. 
But they cannot destroy the original scriptures. They cannot blot out of existence the 
sources of historical evidence. They cannot prevent men from examining these. They 
cannot hinder the truth from being told. To show that -Mr. Jones as a historian is un- 
worthy of credir, one (act must here suffice. He represents the Waldenses as being op- 
posed to infant baptism. In professing to give Perrin's views on this subject, he says ; 
" they observed the ordinance of baptism, according to the primitive church." But 
Mr. Perrin expressly states, that " they caused their children to be baptized, according 
to the primitive church." That the Waldenses, (except the Petrobrussians who were, 
while they existed, about the one fortieth part of the whole number) baptized infants, 
and maintained sprinkling to be a mode of baptism, is as undeniable as historical evi- 
dence can make any facts. (See J. P. Perrin's His. Wal. Fol. Ed. Lon. 1711, p. 27. 
Sir S. Morland, Leger, Wharey p. 314-320, Dr. J. M. Mason. Dr. S. Miller on baptism 
p. 29. 97, Dr. Brownlee, &c.) That Mr. Jones does not fairly present these historical 
tacts is proved from his own statements ; see p. 338 and other parts of his book (Alba- 
ny Ed. 1824.) That cause must be rotten at the core, which, to sustain its exclusive 
claims, has to alter the scriptures and falsify ecclesiastical history. Men of truth must 
be permited to adopt a religious system which does not need such modes of defence. 

It is sometimes insinuated that the Baptist denomination do not sustain the altera- 
tions made in the scriptures by some of their leading men. A minister belonging to 
that sect was the editor of the Baptist Bible. Other ministers of the same denomina- 
tion advocate and circulate it. All these men who thus publish and circulate this al- 
tered Bible, are sustained in their ministerial office and character by the Baptists. Not 
one of those engaged in making or circulating this perverted Bible, has b?sn publicly 
deposed from the ministry by them for the part he has taken in this high-handed inva- 
sion of God's word. Till this is done, the denomination, as a body, are, either directly 
or indirectly, sustaining this alteration of the scriptures. No insinuation to the con- 
trary can alter the r act. The Baptist denomination must publicly censure those who 
have been openly guilty of altering God's word, or they as a body, are guilty of sus- 
taining, either directly or indirectly, this attack made upon the revelation which he has 
made to man. To pretend that they have nothing more to do with it than other deno- 
minations, is an insult offered to the common sense of the public. Have tbey, indeed, 
nothing more to do with the public acts of their own ministers than other denomina- 
tions have? Truly if I hey think so, they have very little acquaintance with the re- 
gulations of their own church. 



342 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, I». V. 

verted state. He who has received the seal of the covenant, 
who believes and loves all the truths of God's word, and 
whose external deportment is fair, cannot, with propriety, 
be suspended from any privilege of the covenant which he 
may desire to enjoy. He might, upon such evidence of re- 
generation, be allowed to partake of the Lord's supper. But 
if he himself might be permitted to receive the holy commu- 
nion, he certainly may be allowed to have the seal of God's 
covenant applied to his child. He cannot, while he thus, in 
principle and in practice, conforms to the word of God, be 
suspended from covenant privileges. But to refuse to bap- 
tize a person's child, is, in fact, to suspend him from the use 
of covenant or church privileges. By that very act, he is 
deprived of a privilege which those who have a standing in 
the covenant, have a right to enjoy. If he asks to have the 
seal of the covenant applied to his child before he asks to sit 
down at the Lord's table, he, if he might with propriety en- 
joy both privileges, ought not to be deprived of the one, 
merely because he asks it before he does the other. But i{ 
a person is immoral, rejects any one truth or more of God's 
word, slights or treats with disrespect any Divine ordinance 
or disregards any commanded duty ; he then, not only may, 
but ought to be suspended from the privileges of the church. 
While in that state, he ought not to be allowed to take his 
seat at theLord's table. He ought not then to be allowed to 
receive the seal of the covenant for his child. The child is 
in covenant, because the parent is. When therefore the 
parent is suspended from the covenant, either directly by a 
positive act of discipline, or indirectly, by refusing baptism 
to his child, he cannot, while in that state, receive its priv- 
ileges either for himself or for his child. The child while 
in infancy, being incapable of asking the seal of the cove- 
nant for itself, neither asks for nor is refused any privilege. 
If therefore the parent is refused the privileges of the cov- 
enant, the child, from its infant state, cannot ask for itself 
this seal or any other privilege. To refuse to baptize the 
child of a parent is to suspend that parent from the privile- 
ges of the church. But parents who are in covenant are 
bound to discharge its duties. One of these is to have their 
children baptized. 



Ch. 1, § 2, 3.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 343 

2. Some infants have a right to he baptized. Some infants 
are in covenant with God. They were received into that 
relation by Divine authority.* Those infants therefore who 
are in covenant, have a right to its seal. This, in New 
Testament times, is baptism(a). God receives infant chil- 
dren, with their parents, into covenant with himself. When 
therefore one of the parents is in covenant with God ; so 
also are the children. But if the parent with the children, 
is in covenant, they, unless the parent is deprived of this 
privilege, have a right to this ordinance. Whatever is a 
proper covenant seal for the parent to receive, is also a pro- 
per one for the child. When the parent has a right to the 
seal of the covenant, his child has also a right to this its 
confirming token. God himself has established this princi- 
ple. He has definitely settled this matter. If the parent 
has a right to the seal of the covenant, so has the child. 
This is God's decision.* It must therefore be proper. It 
is then manifest that while the parent has a standing in the 
covenant, the child has a right to its seal ; and as in New 
Testament times, the seal of the covenant is bapti?m(a), so 
now the children of baptized parents who retain their stand- 
ing in the covenant, have a right to this holy ordinance. 

3. Any infant can he baptized. Whatever is essential to 
a subject of baptism belongs to every infant(5). Any infant 
may therefore be baptized. It is as possible to baptize an 
infant child of any parent, as it would be to baptize the pa- 
rent. It is as passible to baptize any infant as it was to 
baptize Simon the Samaritan sorcerer(c) ; because no infant 
can, in its own person, be more destitute than he was, of all 
spiritual qualifications for baptism! Every infant, as cer- 
tainly as he did, possesses all that is essential to a proper 
subject of baptism. Every infant is a more suitable person 
to receive that holy seal of the covenant than he was ; be- 
cause no infant is or can be guilty of his crimes or be so 
hardened in wickedness as he was.f When a child is bap- 
tized, it receives the seal of God's covenant. Before it re- 
ceives this seal, it must be either directly or indirectly, re- 
ceived into covenant. If its parents are in covenant, then 
it sustains a covenant relation by a direct and positive enact- 

*See Gen. 17: 7. 9-14. (a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 11 ; P. iii, Ch. 2, § 1, par. II, 
a) See P. ii, Cb. 4, § 1-4. (c) See P. ii, Ch. 2, $ 1. tSee Acts 8: 9-13, 18-23, 



&44 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

ment of God. If its parents are not in covenant, then it is 
indirectly received into covenant by one of the ambassadors 
of Christ. This act, as well as the administration of the or- 
dinance of baptism, is official. When the child of unbapti- 
zed parents is baptized, the responsibility of him who ad- 
ministers the ordinance, is fearfully great. Such parents 
are not in covenant with God. They themselves neglect 
to enter into covenant with him. They do not receive its 
seal. They thereby prove that they have no regard for 
God's ordinances. They will therefore take little or no in- 
terest in the spiritual welfare of their children. To bring 
infants into covenant, and under such circumstances, apply 
its seal to them, is fearful unfaithfulness on the part of him 
who administers the ordinance. Such an act on the part of 
a minister, shows that he has no true regard for God's au- 
thority. On the part of the parent, it shows that, while, by 
having his child baptized, he professes to be a christian, he 
is, nevertheless, entirely destitute of the power of godliness. 
By this act he takes hold of God's covenant, while he disre- 
gards a covenant God. 

The infant who is baptized under these circumstances, is 
laid under covenant obligations to live for the glory of God. 
It is bound in covenant to obey all his commands. To learn 
its obligations and how to discharge them, it is not likely to 
have any opportunity. By the unfaithfulness of a faithless 
watchman, it is placed in a situation in which it is in great 
danger of living a covenant-breaking life. The curse of a 
covenant habitually broken, is likely to rest on such a child. 
The curse of God against the unfaithful shepherd* must rest 
upon him who dares to trifle in this manner with the seal of 
God's covenant. But as the sin of the administrator cannot 
cling to the baptized, so it cannot render the ordinance in- 
valid. If water, the sealing material, not in too large quan- 
tities, is, by a man holding the office of a minister of the 
gospel in New Testament times, applied to an infant or to 
any other human being, in the name of Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost, then the ordinance of christian baptism is ad- 
ministered. Then all that is absolutely essential to the ex- 
istence of this ordinance has been performed. Then the or- 
dinance of baptism must be valid. 

♦See Ezek. 34: 2-19. 



Ch. 1, § 4.] INFANTS TO BE BAPTIZED. 345 

The unfaithful use of the seal of God's covenant is a fear- 
ful evil. This is one reason among others, why baptized 
infidels and profligates throng our streets ; why baptized en- 
emies of God swarm in almost every neighborhood. To 
break God's covenant, graciously made with man, is a most 
heinous sin. # Those who are guilty of it, are generally 
found among the most profane of the infidel race. In order 
to progress in the ways of sin, they must break over the re- 
straints of God's covenant as well as those of his law. It is 
often remarked that " baptized children are as bad as oth- 
ers." Sometimes there is truth in the remark. This is fre- 
quently the case when the seal of the covenant is perverted. 
Then this is a truth not to be denied. This evil may there- 
fore in almost all, if not in every case, be traced to the un- 
faithful use of the seal of God's covenant. Such children 
have been baptized, but they have not been trained « up in 
the nurture and admonition of the Lord."t Let him there- 
fore who prostitutes this holy ordinance, this seal of God's 
covenant, tremble in view of a coming judgment. Let him 
now be aroused to a sense of his duty, if his conscience has 
not yet been " seared" as " with a hot iron. "J 

4. Persons baptized in infancy know ih°, fact. There are 
a number of ways by which a person may become acquaint- 
ed with a fact. He may know the truth of a statement ; (1.) 
By the evidence of his senses ; (2.) By mathematical de- 
monstration ; (3.) By Divine revelation ; (4.) By histori- 
cal evidence ; (5.) By experiment ; (6.) By the testimony 
of records and of living witnesses. A reasonable amount of 
evidence presented to the mind from any one of these sour- 
ces, convinces reasonable men. When convinced by evi- 
dence which is suitable in kind and sufficient in degree, they 
believe the position thus proved. They believe it, because 
they know it to be true by the knowledge which they have 
obtained from some proper source of evidence. Reasonable 
men believe what they know from good evidence. They 
do not believe that of which they have no knowledge ; and 
they know that for which they have proper evidence. 

Persons know that they have been baptized either from 
the evidence of their senses or from other testimony. Very 
few persons would have any knowledge of the baptism of 

*S«e Jer. 11: 10, Rom. 1: 31. fEph. 6: 4. U Tim. 4: 2. 



346 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

others, if they could know nothing but that for which they 
had the evidence of their own senses. From this source of 
knowledge, no immerser could know whether one in fifty of 
his fellow irnmersers had or had not been immersed. How 
many of those immersed in the United States did any one 
person see go or put under the water % Perhaps no one in- 
dividual has stood by while more than fifty were immersed. 
It is only by the testimony of others, that he knows and be- 
lieves that the remainder were immersed. By the same 
kind of testimony persons baptized in infancy know the fact. 
They know that they, in infancy, have received the ordi- 
nance ol christian baptism, (1.) From the testimony of their 
parents ; (2.) From that of the minister who baptized them; 
(3.) From the senior members of the church ; (4.) From 
the testimony of the church records. Those who know a 
fact from such testimony as this, know it just as certainly 
as they could know it from any other evidence. But be this 
as it may, they know the fact of their own baptism, from 
the very same kind of evidence, and know it as certainly, 
as any immerser knows that his fellow irnmersers have been 
entirety under water as a substitute for baptism. If know- 
ledge arising from the testimony of others will do for irn- 
mersers, they show more of the old Serpent's cunning than 
of true spiritual wisdom, when they endeavor to lead per- 
sons to doubt whether they were or were not baptized in in- 
fancy, by telling them that they do not know the fact, be- 
cause they were infants when the ordinance was adminis- 
tered to them. But it ought to be remembered, that if the 
testimony of others is good evidence for irnmersers, it is al- 
so good for baptizers. If an immerser can know that a per- 
son has been immersed who was put under the water while 
he was at the distance of one hundred or five hundred miles, 
a baptizer can know, from the very same kind of evidence, 
that is, the testimony of others, that he was baptized in in- 
fancy. Persons who have been baptized in infancy may 
know the fact by a four-fold evidence. This is sufficient for 
those who believe that for which they have good proof. But 
those who, without any evidence, believe that immersion is 
the only mode of baptism, and without any authority exclude 
infants from the seal of God's covenant, would certainly feel 



Ch. 2, § 1, 2.] ADVANTAGES OP INFANT BAPTISM. 347 

insulted if it was insinuated that they require evidence for 
that which they believe. But no such insinuation is here 
intended. Indeed, they believe their exclusive system, (if 
they really do believe it,) without the least shadow of evi- 
dence of any kind. It would be entirely wrong therefore 
to suppose that they require evidence in favor of what they 
believe, or rather of what they profess to believe. 



CHAPTER II. 

ADVANTAGES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. To be in covenant with God is an advantage. The in- 
fant descendants of Abram were in visible covenant with 
God. All the advantages of having a God in covenant was 
theirs. The promise of God's covenant was theirs.* Bap- 
tism is of as much advantage to the christian's child as cir- 
cumcision was to the infant seed of a Jew. The promise of 
the covenant was made to the Jew and his seed. The same 
" promise" of the covenant is continued to the christian and 
to his " children"! (a). To be entitled to the promise of the 
covenant is a special advantage. To those who are interested 
in this covenant, its promise belongs. For infants therefore 
to be in the covenant and to be entitled to its promise must 
be a great advantage, unless circumstances render it other- 
wise. 

To question the utility of a Divine ordinance, is truly im- 
pious. Baptism was instituted by Divine wisdom. It was by 
the same authority required to be administered to infants(&). 
For a worm of the dust to step forward and demand of his 
Maker, what advantage there is in obeying his command, is 
an unblushing insult offered to the King of kings. 

2. To be publicly recognized as in visible covenant with 
God, is an advantage. When infants are baptized, they are, 
by that act, publicly recognized as sustaining a covenant re- 
lation to God and to his visible people. In baptism they re- 
ceive the seal of the covenant. This is, in itself, a great 
blessing. But this like other blessings, if the baptized vio- 
late the covenant, will become a curse on the head of the 
transgressor. Those who are in covenant are in the way of 

*See Gen. 17: 7. 8. 1See Acts 2: 39. (a) See P. iii, Cb. 2, § 1, par. 6. (b) See P. 
jji, Ch. 2, $ 5. 7. 



348 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

covenant blessings. Every christian knows the advantages 
of being in this way. Here he frequently meets and holds 
communion with his covenant God. Here, to the christian's 
children, he is often manifested as their covenant-keeping 
God. 

The symbolical "locusts" were not allowed to hurt any 
that had " the seal of God in their foreheads."* To be thus 
preserved was certainly an advantage, but to secure this, the 
Divine protection, the seal must be "in the forehead.' 7 God 
has not told us that he will acknowledge that as a seal of his 
covenant which covers the whole body. God exercises a 
special care over his sealed ones. Infants need this special 
care. God chooses to exercise it over those who wear the 
seal of his covenant in their foreheads ; therefore to have 
that seal in the proper place is a great blessing. 

It is often asked with a sneer, " what good does it do to 
sprinkle a little water on an infant's face V It might be 
asked in reply, " what good does it do to put an adult entire- 
ly under water ?" So far as the mere act of putting an adult 
under water is considered, and the act of sprinkling water 
on an infant, the one is certainly as important as the other. 
Besides, sprinkling a little water on an infant's face does no 
harm. But immersing the body entirely under water often 
does(a). As far therefore as the two acts are concerned, 
sprinkling a little water on an infant's face will, in the esti- 
mation of sensible men, appear to be at least as useful as the 
immersion of an adult entirely under water. But when bap- 
tism is viewed as a seal of that covenant into which God has 
been pleased to enter with his visible church, when it is con- 
templated as a Divine ordinance, as a solemn religious duty ; 
then sneering is out of place. Under such circumstances, 
with those who regard the authority of their Creator, pre- 
server and final judge it will scarcely be allowed to pass with 
a silent rebuke. The baptism of infants is a solemn duty, 
or it is an act of solemn mockery. With the King of kings, 
a sneer will not answer as a substitute for a solemn duty. 
With men of sense, it will not answer as a substitute for ev- 
idence. It will only have a tendency to deceive the more 
ignorant part of those who know not the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Those who first substitute immersion for baptism and then 

*Rev. 9-. 3. 4. (a) See B. ii, P. iv. Ch. 3, $ 4. 



Ch. 2, § 3, 4.] ADVANTAGES OF INFANT BAPTISM, 349 

sneer at God's own ordinance, deserve the pity and prayers, 
if not the stern rebuke, of all God's people. 

3. The blessings of the covenant are. numerous. To those 
in covenant, these are promised. Those children who are 
in covenant are (1.) Entitled to covenant instruction. This 
is a special blessing. In this matter God appears in his ma- 
jesty as the children's friend. His direction on this subject 
is this ; " these words which I command thee this day, shall 
be in thy heart ; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto 
thy children."* (2.) They are entitled to covenant re- 
straints. The very thought of being bound in covenant to 
conform to all the requirements of the Divine law, will re- 
strain the waywardness of children and youth. The cov- 
enant instruction which they receive exercises a restraining 
influence over them. (3.) They may plead the promises of 
their covenant God. What a blessing this is ! (4.) They 
often receive covenant grace. Every christian will at once 
perceive that these blessings are special privileges which be- 
long only to those who are in covenant with God. They 
can easily perceive how important they are to children. 

4. The, obligations of the covenant are a great advantage. 
Those who are in covenant are under covenant obligations, 
trod requires them to keep his covenant. By this language 
they are bound to conform to all the stipulations of the cov- 
enant. These all require what is right and proper. It is 
therefore the interest no less than the duty of all others as 
well as of children, to comply with the whole of them. Those 
in covenant are bound by a two-fold obligation to comply 
with all the Divine injunctions. They are bound both by 
the commands and by the covenant of their God, to perform 
all its stipulations or duties. To obey is both a privilege and 
a duty. The more firmly persons are bound to do right, the 
more likely they are to do so. To have the obligations of 
the covenant laid upon infant children and to teach them 
these obligations as soon as they are capable of reflection, 
are to them great and unspeakable advantages. They are 
thus prevented from falling into many sins. They are in 
this way restrained from travelling so rapidly in the broad 
road to destruction, as they otherwise might do. To break 
over a double restraint is not so easy as to break over a sin- 

*Deut. 6: 6. 7. 



350 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

gle one. But when persons do break over the greater ob- 
struction which God in mercy thus lays in the downward 
road, they sometimes rush on with a more fearful rapidity 
than those do who had been under less restraint. 

5. All baptized persons are bound in covenant to read, be- 
lieve, love and practice what God in his word requires. They 
are bound in covenant to take the scriptures of truth for their 
only rule of duty in all religious matters. Those among 
them who believe and practice as religion either more or less 
than what God in his word requires, are covenant-breakers. 
The covenant requires them to believe as religious doctrines 
just what the scriptures teach, and to conform to all the Di- 
vine commands as their only external religious duties. All 
persons are by the Divine law, bound to do all this. But the 
baptized are also under covenant obligations to discharge 
these duties. These covenant obligations are exceedingly 
valuable to all baptized persons. They are specially so to 
children ; because children need more restraint, more direc- 
tion, more instruction than adults do. 

6. Parents are bound in covenant to pray for and instruct 
their baptized children. All parents, because they are such, 
are commanded by the law of God to do all this for their 
children. They are thus bound to •* train" them " up in the 
way" they "should go," to "bring them up in the nurture 
and admonition of the Lord.' 5 * These and similar direc- 
tions require all parents, both by precept and example, to 
train up their children to believe, think, speak and act in all 
religious duties, in accordance with God's word. At the 
child's baptism, the parent publicly recognizes his solemn 
covenant obligations to do for it what he was before bound 
by the law to do. This is an advantage to the baptized child. 
It must be manifest to all that the parent who is willing pub- 
licly to acknowledge his obligation to discharge all the du- 
ties which he owes to his offspring, by recognizing his solemn 
covenant engagement to do so, is much more likely to train 
them up properly, than the parent who will not thus recog- 
nize his obligations. Besides this his covenant engagement 
is an additional bond which binds him to discharge his paren- 
tal duties. The more firmly a person is bound to discharge 
a duty, the more probable it is that he will attend to it. As 

*Prov. 22: 6, Eph. 6: 4. 






Ch. 2, § 7.] ADVANTAGES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 351 

the parent who dedicates his child to the. service of the Tri- 
une God in baptism, solemnly recognizes his obligation 
to train it up for his service and glory ; so, by perform- 
ing this act, the child is more likely to be trained up for 
heaven than if the parent refuses or neglects to recognize 
this obligation. Therefore to have the parent bound in 
covenant to pray for and instruct his children in ways of 
holiness both by precept and example, cannot but be an ad- 
vantage to them. 

7. Ministers and church officers are bound in covenant to 
promote the spiritual interest of baptized children. That this 
is an advantage few will deny. They are bound by the law 
to promote the spiritual interest of children in general. But 
they are under special obligations to watch over and instruct 
those who are baptized. These are in a very important 
sense, the lambs of Christ's flock. Indeed, baptized children 
are his visible lambs ; because they are in visible covenant 
with him. Concerning these, the great Shepherd gives a 
special charge to all his ministering servants. He says to 
each of them ; " feed my lambs." It is their duty to "feed 
the" whole " flock ;" but they ought to watch with special 
care over the lambs. They are all to be fed with spiritual 
" knowledge and understanding."* To do this they are 
bound by their covenant obligations. It is even included in 
the ministerial commission. The expression " all nations" 
certainly includes infants and baptized children. t Those 
whom " the good Shepherd " commissions to feed his flock, 
certainly will not reject the lambs, the young of "the sheep," 
from the fold.| Those who have any true regard for the 
sheep, will not turn the lambs out into the wilderness to be- 
come the prey of wild beasts. But they will watch over 
and feed them with care. The under-shepherd who really 
loves God's truth, will take pleasure in communicating it to 
the lambs of Christ. But if it dwells only on his lips, or if 
he rejects the whole or even a part of it ; then the lambs 
will be in great danger of being neglected To have the 
office-bearers in the church of Christ, bound in covenant to 
watch over and instruct a child in the knowledge of true re- 
ligion, and in other ways to promote his eternal welfare, is 

*John 21: 15, 1 Cor. 3: 2, 1 Pet. 5: 2, Acts 20: 28, Jer. 3: 15. tSee Mat. 23: 19. 20. 
J John 10: 12. 14. 27. 



352 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. IV, P. V. 

an unspeakable advantage. To this privilege the child, at 
its baptism, becomes entitled. 

8. Each person in covenant owes, special duties to every 
other. Those who are all in covenant with God, are thus 
bound, as far as they have an opportunity in providence, to 
pray for, watch over, instruct, and guide each other. This 
is a great advantage to adults. It often prevents them from 
falling into sin. It not unfrequently restores the wanderer, 
strengthens the weak, confirms the wavering, encourages 
the desponding, and enlightens the ignorant. But if the 
watchful care of experienced christians is an advantage to 
adults, it is much more so to children. These meet with a 
thousand temptations to which adults are not exposed. 
Snares are laid for them on every hand. Of the wiles of Sa- 
tan and the devices of wicked men, they have little or no 
knowledge. For little children thus exposed, to have all the 
professed people of God bound in covenant to pray for, 
watch over, instruct and guide them, during their childhood 
and youth, is a benefit, ineffably important. This is a spe- 
cial advantage to a child in its early years. Any parent 
about to close his eyes in death, would realize it to be a pri- 
vilege inconceivably great, to have the whole visible church 
of God under covenant obligations to promote, as far as they 
could in providence, the temporal and especially the spiritual 
good of his child. Such a benefit is secured to every bap- 
tized infant. It is in its baptism publicly recognized as be- 
ing in covenant with God and his visible people. All there- 
fore who are in this covenant are thus bound to do all this 
for the baptized child. The infant needs and receives all 
this, no le&s than the adult who receives the holy ordinance * 
of baptism. What reflecting man will ask with a sneer ; 
" of what advantage is all this to an unconscious infant V 
Every person can at once perceive that the more incapable 
an infant is of taking care of itself, the greater to it is the 
advantage of having others bound in covenant to extend over 
it a special or guardian care. This guardian care, every 
adult church member is bound in covenant, so far as oppor- 
tunity offers, to exercise over every baptized child. Of the 
advantage of this to young children, no person can form an 
adequate conception. The principal advantages of infant 



Ch. 2, § 9.J ADVANTAGES OF INFANT BAPTISM. 353 

baptism mentioned in this section, are of special importance 
in childhood and youth. It ought ever to be remembered that 
all adult church members are bound in covenant; (1.) To 
pray for baptized children ; (2.) To watch over them ; (3.) 
To guide them both by precept and example into paths of 
truth and holiness ; (4.) To instruct them, especially in the 
doctrines and duties of religion, as they are contained in the 
word of God. 

9. The relation which baptized infants sustain to God, is 
a special blessing. They are in covenant with him. Its 
seal has been placed upon them. Its promise is theirs. God 
himself gives them this. He said to Abram, I will "be 
a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee ;" and to chris- 
tians, he by his servant, says ; " The promise is unto you 
and to your children. 77 * The relation of children begins in 
earliest infancy. Here he promises to " be a God unto" 
infants, to children who are in covenant with him. When 
he makes such a promise as this to infant children, it in- 
cludes invaluable blessings. To baptized infants and to oth- 
ers who have received this ordinance, he is a God in cove- 
nant. To all these and especially to baptized infants, he 
often grants (1.) Covenant restraints ; (2.) Covenant direc- 
tions ; (3.) Covenant associates ; (4.) Covenant instruction; 
(5.) Covenant temporal blessings ; (6.) Covenant afflictions; 
(7.) Covenant promises ; (8.) Covenant threatenings ; (9.) 
Covenant ordinances ; (10.) Covenant grace. Indeed, 
whatever they receive on earth, comes from a covenant God. 
Whether he smiles or frowns, he is still their covenant God. 
To the baptized person, whether infant or adult, he sustains 
this covenant relation. The blessings connected with it are 
numerous and valuable. To an adult they are important, 
but to an infant many of them are much more so. This will 
be manifest to any person who will only learn the number 
and kind of blessings promised in the covenant of which bap- 
tism is a seal(a). He can at once perceive that these are 
all as important to infants as they are to adults, and some 
of them, such as the restraints, directions and associates of 
the covenant, much more so. The covenant relation then 
which baptized infants sustain to God, is a very special bles- 
sing to them. 

*Gen. 17: 7. 8, Acts 2: 39. (a)% 3-, See also Gen. 17: 1-14. 

23 



354 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

10. Persons baptized in infancy are not deprived of any 
privilege. Liberty is an invaluable blessing. It differs es- 
sentially from wickedness. To have the privilege of doing 
right is true liberty. To have the privilege of doing wrong 
is entirely opposed to liberty. To steal and lie and swear 
and violate the sabbath and the like, is not to enjoy liberty. 
To live in sin is to be a slave. The author of all true liber- 
ty has said ; " whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of 
sin."* To be bound to do right cannot diminish, but must 
always increase every person's liberty. The more firmly 
a man is bound to obey all the Divine requirements, the 
greater are his privileges. Obedience to God's commands is 
the most refined enjoyment. This is genuine pleasure, true 
liberty. To enjoy this, obedience must be prompt and im- 
plicit. Those who neglect or refuse to obey, or who in any 
other way actually disobey his commands, are thereby de- 
prived of this true liberty. When an infant is baptized, it 
is not deprived of the privilege of obeying any one command 
of God. But its obligation to obey is, by its baptism, actu- 
ally increased. By receiving this ordinance therefore, its 
liberty becomes more extended as well as refined. To be- 
lieve in infant baptism is a positive duty. For parents to 
have their infant children dedicated to God in this ordinance, 
is both a duty and a privilege. To do for a child what God 
requires, is not to take away its liberty or to deprive it of 
any privilege. But he„who neglects to have his children 
baptized, abridges their liberty, and deprives them of all the 
advantages which baptized children enjoy. He deprives 
them of God's covenanted mercies. Nor are children who 
are baptized in infancy, deprived of the privilege of choosing 
for themselves when they become adults. They and all oth- 
er persons are bound to choose what God requires. God re- 
quires infant baptism. On this account therefore they are 
bound to choose it. Those who enjoy true liberty on this 
subject, do choose to believe in infant baptism and to sustain 
the practice. Those who wish to oppose God's authority in 
this matter, are much mistaken if they suppose that such op- 
position constitutes true liberty. This is far from being 
liberty in any one of its essential parts. To dedicate a child 
to the service of God cannot deprive it of the privilege of 



Ch. 2, § 10.] ADVANTAGES OP INFANT BAPTISM. 355 

serving him according to his word. To bring a child under 
covenant obligations to conform in principle and in prac- 
tice to God's revealed will, does not, cannot deprive it of 
the right to serve the Lord in the beauty of holiness. When 
Abram circumcised Isaac on the eighth day after his birth, 
he did not thereby deprive him of the right to obey that Di- 
vine command which required every male Israelite to be 
circumcised Jn infancy.* Those who mistake the slavery 
of sin, the violation of the Divine law, for liberty ; those 
who deem it a privilege to do what God forbids, or to neglect 
what he requires, and only those, can really suppose that 
their privileges are abridged by having their obligations to 
obey increased. If to be ignorant of i ivine truth, or to ne- 
glect it, or to live without any covenant restraint, or to grow 
up and remain for years, perhaps for life, in the constant 
reception of uncovenanted mercies, could be considered as a 
privilege ; then baptized children who are trained up to love,, 
reverence and obey the Divine commands, are deprived of 
such privileges. But to be in such a state is not a privilege^ 
is not liberty. It is real slavery. Those who are trained 
up from infancy with little or no knowledge of Divine truths 
with no covenant restraints thrown around them, exposed to 
every temptation, and either directly or indirectly encour- 
aged in all popular sins, are thus prepared to become the 
easy dupes of any impostor. Even those who substitute 
their own fancies for Divine revelation, and who have, with 
unholy hands, altered God's own word, might easily lead 
astray such ignorant and vicious and unrestrained charac- 
ters. But for a child to be, from its earliest years, in cov- 
enant with God ; for it to be bound by this covenant to love 
and serve him according to his word ; for it to be under spe- 
cial obligations to read tht| scriptures and to conform to their 
every requirement, cannot possibly deprive it of the privi- 
lege of obeying the Divine commands. Those therefore 
who, in the holy ordinance of baptism, dedicate their infant 
children to the service of the Triune Jehovah, do not deprive 
them of any privilege. They do not thus take from them 
the right of choosing to serve God according to his word. 
When a child is baptized, the parent, among other things, 
publicly recognizes and acknowledges his obligation to teach 

*See Gen. 17: 12. 



356 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

it the doctrines and duties of true religion as these are pre- 
sented in the word of God. This prepares it for choosing 
intelligently in adult age, to conform to the Divine will re- 
vealed in the holy scriptures. From what has been here 
stated, several points are manifest. (1.) It is evident that 
to be ignorant and vicious and unrestrained by the Divine 
law and covenant is not a privilege. (2.) It is clear that 
to conform to God's revealed will is the very soul of true 
liberty. (3.) It is evident that to believe and practice what 
God requires in his word is to enjoy liberty. (4.) To be 
trained up from infancy to know and obey the Divine will, 
is the only effectual way to be enabled to make, in adult age, 
an intelligent choice in religious matters. (5.) To believe 
and practice what is right prepares the mind of a person to 
choose that service which God in his word requires. (6.) 
To neglect duty or to live in sin is the most effectual way to 
prepare the mind for choosing unholy or sinful principles 
and practices. If these call themselves charity, liberality, 
brotherly love or religion, they will almost certainly be em- 
braced by the ignorant and vicious. (7.) Deceivers who al- 
most always advocate ignorance wish to have the instruc- 
tion of children neglected, or maintain that they should be 
left free from the restraints of God's covenant, in order that 
they, by their delusive practices, may, with the more ease, 
entangle them in their snares. (8.) Those who baptize in- 
fant children and thereby lay them under covenant obliga- 
tions to love and obey all the Divine requirements, do not 
deprive them, when they become adults, of the privilege of 
serving God according to his word. (9.) Those who ne- 
glect or refuse to baptize children, deprive them of all the 
advantages of infant baptism. (10.^) To live in the habitual 
practice of neglecting or of opposing infant baptism, is very 
far from being liberty or a christian privilege. To do this 
is only another name for slavery. 

From what has been stated in this chapter, it is evident 
that baptism is not in any respect less advantageous to an 
infant than it is to an adult. It is also evident that in some 
respects, it is even more important to infants than to others. 
To both it is the seal of the covenant. To both it secures 
not a few external covenant blessings. To both it signifies 



Ch. 3, § 1.] NEGLECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 357 

the work of the holy Spirit on the soul. Of that work bap- 
tism with water is the symbol(a). To both it is a public re- 
cognition of their interest in the covenant made with God's 
visible people. Around both, it throws wholesome restraints. 
To neither is it regeneration or necessarily connected with 
the new-creating power of the Holy Ghost(5). When any 
person names an advantage which baptism is to an adult, 
he, if he understands the subject, will readily perceive that 
its advantages to an infant are equal or even greater. A 
few of the advantages of infant baptism have been mention- 
ed. The full value of these can be learned when the light 
of eternity beams upon this subject. But even in this dark 
world of sin, the christian can perceive much of their impor- 
tance. He will not therefore, merely to please ignorant or 
designing men, be easily induced to train up his children 
** aliens from the commonwealth of" God's spiritual " Israel 
and strangers from the covenants of promise. 77 He will 
not, to gratify such characters, leave them without any hope 
of enjoying, in infancy, the blessings of this covenant, and 
"without" a covenant "God in' 7 this "world"* of sin and sor- 
row. The true christian has too much regard for the spirit- 
ual interest of his children to leave them thus exposed to the 
wiles of the great adversary of souls. 

CHAPTER III. 

EVILS OF NEGLECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. To baptize infants is a duty. This duty is frequently 
and pointedly and positively taught in the word of God(c). 
When therefore infant baptism is neglected, a positive duty 
is neglected. God requires the seal of his covenant to be 
applied to infants. To neglect to do so, is therefore to ne- 
glect a duty to God. The parent owes this duty to his child. 
If he neglects it, he then neglects a duty which he ought to 
perform for his child. To do what God requires, is also a 
duty which the parent owes to himself. To neglect to obey 
those commands which require him to dedicate his child to 
God in baptism, is to neglect his duty to himself as well as 
to God and to his child. To neglect such a manifest duty 

(a) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, § 9. (b) See B. i, P. iv, Ch. 1, $ 16. *Epb, 2: 12. (c) 
See P. iii, Cb. 2, $ 1-10, and P. iii, Ch. 3, § 1-6. 



358 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

to himself, to his child and to God, is one great evil of which 
every parent is guilty who, from any cause, neglects to at- 
tend to the baptism of his infant children. 

2. To neglect infant baptism is a sin. To neglect a duty 
is a sin. Parents who neglect the baptism of their children, 
are living in the habitual neglect of this duty. They contin- 
ually violate all those precepts which, either directly or in- 
directly, require them to dedicate their infant children to 
God in baptism(a). The sin of this neglect is exceedingly 
complicated. Its name might be Legion. Such parents vi- 
olate the command of God. They transgress or neglect his 
covenant. They leave their children to grow up in the 
continual reception of uncovenanted mercies. They neglect 
God's offered blessings. They leave their children exposed 
to all the temptations of Satan and to the allurements of the 
world. The restraints of God's covenant are not thrown 
around them for their protection. In all this sin and much 
more, every parent who neglects to have his children bap- 
tized, habitually lives. The guilt of neglecting this duty 
has no palliation, when God in his providence gives the pa- 
rent an opportunity of having his child baptized. 

If a parent does not believe it to be his duty to have his 
children baptized, this, his sin, will not thereby be diminish- 
ed, it may be increased. Men's duties do not depend on 
what they do or on what they do not believe to be such. 
When God commands, it is every man's duty to obey. All 
are bound to believe that to be a duty which God requires ; 
and to neglect one duty cannot be a good excuse for neg- 
lecting another. Men's unbelief cannot free them from 
their obligations to obey the Divine commands. It cannot 
become a substitute for the discharge of any duty. The 
word of God requires every parent to believe in and prac- 
tice infant baptism. His unbelief cannot remove tin's, his 
obligation. It will not even have a tendency to lead him to 
engage in the discharge of this solemn, this interesting duty 
which he owes to God, to himself, to his children, and it 
may be added, to the church and to the world. If a man 
does not believe it to be his duty to pray for his children or 
instruct them, his unbelief will not make the commands "of 
God without effect."* The Divine command, not men's 

(a) See P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1-10, and P. iii, Ch. 3, $ 1-6. *Rom, & 3, 



Ch. 3, § 3, 4.] NEGLECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 359 

belief or unbelief, is the rule of duty. When he commands, 
men ought to believe and obey. But to neglect or refuse to 
believe, will not excuse a single human being from his obli- 
gations to render obedience to every or any Divine com- 
mand. 

Parents, because of the relation which they sustain to 
their children, are bound to do for them all that they ac- 
knowledge to be their duty, when they dedicate them to God 
in baptism. They do not, at the baptism of a child, assume 
new obligations. They only acknowledge the old, and lay 
others under obligations to assist them, as far as providential 
circumstances will permit^ to " train" him up " in the way 
he should go. 77 The baptism of the child therefore becomes 
a privilege to the parent. It is therefore to him both a privi- 
lege and a positive duty. The baptismal obligations, in all 
their extent, rest on every parent. From these he cannot 
escape so long as he is a parent. If he would have the whole 
church bound in covenant to assist him with their prayers, 
counsel and sympathy, in these his labors of love ; he by 
having his child baptized and in no other way, can enjoy 
this privilege. 

3. To neglect infant baptism is to turn aside from God's 
mercies. In his mercy, in his rich, free and sovereign 
grace, he permits, he commands parents to have the seal of 
the covenant applied to their infant children. To neglect to 
do this is to neglect both the grace and the promise of the 
covenant into which God has entered with his visible peo- 
ple. It is to set at naught his condescending love which he 
manifested in receiving infant children with their parents 
into covenant with himself. 

4. To neglect infant baptism is to lose all its advantages. 
These are many ; and each of them inconceivably valua- 
ble^). To neglect and thereby lose all the blessings of the 
covenant is an evil the extent of which cannot be determined 
by man on earth(6). 

(a)See Ch. '2, § 1-10. (b) Persons ought to present their own children in baptism. 
By the parent's own children is meant his natural descendants or his adopted children. 
God in his word, does not authorize any other persons to stand as sponcers for children 
or to present them for baptism. What are now, and have long been called sponcers or 
god-fathers and god-mothers are not mentioned in the scriptures. They reieive no 
countenance from the word of God. In the early ages of the christian church, these 
characters are not named. In the fifth and sixth centuries, they are mentioned in spe- 
•:ia! cases. Nor did Popery venture to forbid parents to present their own chiluien fo: 



360 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

Merely to neglect infant baptism, when God, in his pro- 
vidence gives us an opportunity of attending to it, is a sin of 
no small magnitude. Every parent ought to reflect on this 
subject. He ought to ask himself, what account he is pre- 
pared to give to God for neglecting to apply the seal of the 
covenant to the infant children whom he is training for eter- 
nity. The obligation is constantly resting upon the parent 
to dedicate his child to God in baptism. He must perform 
the duty or live in habitual sin. Parent, which of these 
will you do % 



CHAPTER TV. 

EVILS OF REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 

1. Some men reject infant baptism. This truth is gene- 
rally known and acknowledged. Infant baptism is a positive 
duty required in the scriptures. It might therefore be ex- 
pected that some persons would reject it. That to baptize 
infants is a scriptural duty has already been clearly shown(a). 
That men refuse to discharge this duty, is also certain. The 
general reason why they reject this duty is simply this. 
They do not love, they even hate it. The word of God is 
plain and positive on this subject. Human authority on it is 
overwhelming^). It must therefore in general at least be 
hatred to this duty or to the word of God which requires it, 
or certainly a want of love for these, which leads men to 
reject infant baptism. If men really hate this duty, it might 

Ca;See P. iii, Ch. 2, $ 1-10 antl P. iii, Ch. 3, § 1-6. (b)See P. iv, Ch. 1, § 1-4 and 
P. iv, Ch. 2, § 1. 2. and P. iv, Ch. 3, § 1-4. 

baptism till the ninth century. Then, at the council of Mentz, this privilege was taken 
from parents and given to god-fathers and god-mothers. Thus the responsibility of 
training up baptized children fr God, was taken from parents their natural sponcers 
and given to those who had neither the will nor the power to instruct them in the 
principles or duties of the christian religion. To substitute, f->r children at their bap- 
tism, other sponsers instead of the natural or foster parent-, is a mere relic of Popery. 
It receives no countenance from 'he word of God or from the primitive church. Nor 
did the pious W'aldenses adopt this unscriptural notion. See Augustine, Cyril, Fulgen- 
tius, Perrin, Morland, Tertullian, Dionysius, &c. 

The rite of confirmation is not authorized by any declaration contained in the scrip- 
tures. The apostles did not practice this modern ceremony. They confi med the dis- 
ciples by "exhorting them to continue in the faith." They adopted nothing like the 
rite of confiimation as practiced in all Romish and some Protestant churches. This 
with other superstitious ceremonies, was introduced into the church in the latter part 
of the second century and in the beginnin? of the third. These superstitious additions 
to chri-tian ordinances, were practiced in the following order; exorcism, confession, 
renunciation, anointing and confirmation, Baptism preceded anointing. See Dr. Mil- 
ler, Tertullian, Owen, &c. 



Ch. 4, § 2.] REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 361 

well be doubted, even if they did not habitually violate other 
Divine commands, whether they in truth love any part of 
God's word. He who hates to discharge any one of the du- 
ties plainly and positively required in the scriptures, may 
well doubt whether he truly loves any of them. Those 
who love God's word, love it all. Those therefore who re- 
ject infant baptism, if they do not reject the scriptures en- 
tirely, certainly neglect to take them for their only rule in 
the performance of all religious duties. This is an evil of 
a fearful magnitude. 

Of those who reject infant baptism and yet profess to be- 
lieve the scriptures to be a revelation from God ; some en- 
tirely reject baptism with water, while others immerse adults 
only. These would all manifest much more consistency, if 
they did not profess to receive the word of God as infallibly 
true, or if they did not professedly take it for their only rule 
in all religious duties. But for persons to profess to take 
that holy book for their only rule of duty, and then to alter 
it so as to endeavor to make it teach at least a small part of 
what they believe, is not a mark of love for God's truth. 
To reject, as they do, some of the duties which Divine re- 
velation positively teaches, and frequently, if not habitually, 
violate some of its positive commands, is in those who pro- 
fess to be guided by its precepts, very inconsistent to the 
mind of the christian. 

2. Those who reject infant baptism reject GooVs covenant. 
God entered into covenant with his visible church in the 
days of Abram(a). Into this, as one of the parties, God 
brought infants and adults. He has not, at any time, ex- 
cluded either of these classes of persons from the covenant. 
They therefore both together constitute one party in this 
covenant. Those who reject that covenant, a portion of one 
of the parties in which, is made up of infants, reject God's 
covenant. The church which he organized embraces in- 
fants and adults. Those societies therefore which refuse 
membership to infants or which do not recognize them as 
members, are not branches of that church which God has 
organized. In this his church, infant membership is recog- 
nized. By refusing to recognize infant membership in their 
societies, they reject the covenant into which God has en- 
fa; See K i, Ch. 3, § l. 2. 8. 



362 BIBLE BAPTtSM. [b. IV, P. V. 

tered with his professed people. This embraced their in- 
fant children. When they reject this covenant there is no 
other made with his visible people for them to embrace. 
The only one into which God has entered with his visible 
church, includes infants as a portion of one of the parties. 
He has organized no church embracing adults only. Those 
societies which embrace adults only, cannot therefore be 
portions of that church which includes infants. That which 
God organized certainly embraces infants. When men ex- 
clude from the covenant one or more of the parties in it, 
they reject the covenant itself. If a society of persons 
should reject all adults from membership, that could not be 
a branch of the visible church ; because they would then re- 
ject those whom God had received. On the very same prin- 
ciple, those who reject infants, cannot be a portion of the vi- 
sible church. Such persons divide a party in the covenant 
and then reject one portion of those whom God made collec- 
tively one of its parties. By doing this, they destroy the 
covenant, or in other words, they leave it with but one party. 
The other is not composed of adults alone, but of infants and 
adults together. These together, not separately, form one of 
the parties in the covenant. To divide this party and reject a 
portion of it, is to destroy the party ; and to destroy a party in 
the covenant is to destroy the covenant. Those who reject 
or destroy God's covenant, practically disorganize, as far as 
they can do so, the visible church on earth. This is one 
great evil of refusing to infants the seal of the covenant, 
or of rejecting infant baptism. 

3. To reject infant baptism is to substitute the wisdom of 
man f>r that of God. He, in his wisdom, received infants 
into covenant with himself. He required its seal to be ap- 
plied to them. The Lord Jesus Christ directed his servants 
to baptize them. He received them into his church. Those 
who reject infant baptism say, by their actions if not in 
words, that infants ought not to be or cannot be received 
into covenant with God. They deny its seal to them. They 
refuse to baptize them. They do not allow them a standing 
in the visible covenant into which God has entered with his 
people. In their wisdom, they reject infants from the cove- 
nant. God, in his wisdom, receives them into it as a por- 



Ch. 4, § 4.] REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 363 

tion of one of its parties. In their wisdom, they refuse to 
infants the seal of the covenant. God in his, commands it 
to be applied to them. Christian baptism is now this seal. 
Therefore those who refuse to infants this baptismal seal of 
the covenant substitute their own wisdom for that of God. 
This is nothing less than a direct insult offered to Divine wis- 
dom. It is to prefer the wisdom of man to that of God. It 
is an evil of no small magnitude. 

4. To reject infant baptism entirely would leave the world 
without a visible church. The church which God organized 
embraced infants at its formation. It does so yet ; for he 
has not excluded them from the covenant or from its seal. If 
men exclude them from their societies and refuse to apply 
to them the seal of the covenant, they thereby reject God 7 s 
church and God's covenant. In God's church and in his 
covenant, infants are included. From theirs infants are ex- 
cluded. Their church and covenant cannot therefore be 
the same as God's. But that which God organized is the 
visible church on earth. This included infants. The seal 
of his covenant was applied to them. To refuse infants the 
seal of the covenant is therefore to reject the visible church 
which God organized on earth. This, if practiced by all, 
would leave the world without a visible church. There could 
then be no people in external covenant relation with the 
King of Zion. Then there could be no visible church. 

God can, when he pleases, establish a church and form 
covenant relations with men. But human beings are not by 
him, authorized to organize churches on their own models. 
They have no right to say with whom and where he shall 
make covenants. He has not given them power to do this. 
Men have no right to exclude from covenant relation with 
God what classes of persons they choose. When they act 
in these matters, they must be governed by Divine wisdom 
or be guilty of insulting the King of the universe. Those 
who reject God's covenant and church in rejecting infant 
baptism, have no right to make such substitutes for these as 
will suit themselves or others. God has not authorized them 
to do this. But to refuse to apply to the infant children of 
believing parents the baptismal seal of the covenant, is to 
cast them out of the visible church. Those who do so, re- 



364 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

fuse to allow these little immortals that standing which God 
himself has given them in his visible kingdom on earth. 
They will not baptize them. They thus refuse them the 
New Testament seal of the covenant. If all professedly re- 
ligious societies should do this, then none of them would re- 
cognize infant membership. Not one of them could there- 
fore be composed of adults and infants. But these two classes 
of persons formerly composed and still compose, the visible 
kingdom or church of God on earth. If the whole of these 
societies rejected infants from membership in them, then not 
one of them could be a branch of that church concerning 
which it is said; "of such" — "infants" — or ''little children" — 
"is the kingdom of God."* Infants constitute a portion of 
one of the parties in that covenant into which God has en- 
tered with his visible people. When these are excluded, 
then one of the parties in the covenant is nullified ; then one 
of them ceases to exist as such. But to destroy a party in 
a covenant is to destroy the covenant itself; for no covenant 
can exist without the parties between whom the agreement 
is made. If therefore the whole human race should unite in 
excluding infants from the covenant by refusing to baptize 
them, then no visible covenant could exist into which persons 
might enter with God. The covenant which he made with 
his visible people includes infants. To reject these is to reject 
the covenant ; because in this way one of the parties in it, 
is, as such, destroyed. To cast infants out of the covenant 
which God has made with his visible people is to leave it 
with but one party ; or in other words, this is to destroy the 
covenant. But where there is no covenant, there can be 
no church. If therefore all mankind should reject infant 
baptism, the world would be left without a visible church. 
This is no small evil. 

5. The injury which those who reject infant baptism do to 
children is -eery great. To exclude infants from baptism is 
to deprive them of all its advantages(a). Those who do so, re- 
fuse to train them up in the way they should go. They 
leave them exposed to all the temptations of Satan and to the 
manifold allurements of the world. They eject the lambs of 
the flock from the visible fold of Christ. They refuse to 
bring them to the great Shepherd in the holy ordinance of 

*Luke 18: 15. 16. f«;See Ch. 2, § 1-10. 



Ch. 4, § 6.] REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM. 365 

baptism ; and those who would bring them they often hinder. 
They deny them covenant mercies. These are only a spe- 
cimen of the various and complicated injuries which the re- 
jecters of infant baptism are guilty of doing to children. 

6. Opposition to infant baptism is rebellion against God. 
For men to oppose what God requires is open rebellion 
against him. God made a covenant with his visible people. 
Into this he received infants. For men then to exclude 
them from it, is rank rebellion against heaven. Those who 
do so invade God's holy covenant and exclude from it one 
of the classes of persons who were, by Divine authority, made 
a portion of one of its parties(a). Such persons profane 
God's "covenant."* They, by rejecting it, treat it as if it 
was unworthy their regard. In rejecting infants from the 
covenant and its seal, they invade the prerogatives of the 
Most High. They even attempt to undo what he has done. 
As far as they can do so, they reject infants whom God has 
received into covenant. Thus they would exalt themselves 
above the Sovereign of the universe. They affect to re- 
model his covenanted church, that they may make it better 
calculated to promote the cause of religion. By acting thus 
they incur the guilt of rejecting the covenant and of insult- 
ing the wisdom of God. To oppose infant baDtism is there- 
fore to engage in open rebellion against a covenant-making, 
a covenant-keeping God. 

The preacher who refuses to baptize infants, or who op- 
poses infant baptism, rejects that part of the ministerial com- 
mission which requires those who hold it to baptize •* na- 
tions" — "all nations. "f This is certain: because every 
nation, — " all nations" certainly include infants. He who 
will not baptize infants, refuses to baptize families, whole 
families if an infant or young child is found in them. He 
therefore refuses to do what the apostles-often did. Preach- 
ers therefore who oppose the baptism of infants or who re- 
fuse to baptize them, are living in habitual rebellion against 
the very directions which the Lord Jesus Christ gives to his 
ambassadors in their ministerial commission. 

It is no small sin to live in rebellion against God. But 
the evil of leading others to trifle with his mercy and to re- 
bel against the gracious covenant into which he has entered 

(a)See P. i, Ch. 3, $ 8. *Mal. 2: 10. {Mat. 2 8: 19. 20. 



366 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

with his church, his visible kingdom on earth, is a degree of 
wickedness which, in view of a coming judgment, ought to 
make the guilty tremble. This subject claims the careful, 
the deep, the solemn attention of those who oppose infant 
baptism. They ought to realize that in doing so, they are 
living in habitual rebellion against that God who, in mercy 
and love, received infants into covenant relation with him- 
self. They ought to know that Zion's King has not exclu- 
ded them from a right to its seal and that men have no right 
to do so. By Divine authority that seal is now baptism. He 
has commanded the seal of the covenant to be applied to 
them. This command he has not repealed. It cannot be 
repealed by man. '1 he rebellion of those who attempt to 
do so, is all open before the infant's covenant God. Let 
him who attempts to eject infants from the covenant and 
who refuses to apply its seal to them, remember that the in- 
fant's God will be his final judge. 

Such are a few of the evils of rejecting infant baptism. 
Eternity alone can completely reveal their magnitude. A 
load of guilt, like a mountain of lead, must rest upon the 
soul of him who ventures to trample thus on the gracious 
covenant of a merciful God. May his guilt be washed away 
by the blood of the infant's precious Redeemer who says, 
" Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not; 
for of such is the kingdom of God." 

A GENERAL VIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM. 

IN THE FORM OF A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A BAPTIZER AND AN 
IMMERSER. 

Immerser. Mr. Baptizer, do you hold to believer's bap- 
tism ? 

Baptizer. Please to state what you mean by believer's 
baptism. 

I. Why, to hold to believer's baptism, is to maintain 
that believers ought to be baptized. 

B. Then I hold to believer's baptism ; because I hold 
that all true believers ought to be baptized if they have not 
received that ordinance. 

I. But that is not exactly what I meant to ask. My in- 
tention was to enquire whether you maintain that professed 
believers ought to be baptized. 



REVIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM. 367 

B. If such persons have not been baptized, they certain- 
ly ought to be. Indeed, a credible profession of a person's 
faith is all the evidence that man can have in this life to 
prove that any individual is a true believer. Men cannot 
search the hearts of their fellow-creatures. 

I. But all this does not come to the point at which I am 
aiming. 

B. Well, then, have the goodness to explain yourself 
more fully. 

I. I intended to ask whether you do or do not hold to in- 
fant baptism ? 

B. I certainly do. The scriptures are too full and ex- 
plicit on that subject for any intelligent believer in them to 
reject infant baptism. 

I. I believe the scriptures to be a special revelation from 
God, and yet I reject infant baptism. 

B. Do you believe that men have a right to repeal any 
portion of God's law 1 

I. 1 do not. For men to attempt to repeal or nullify 
any Divine command, would be to reject the scriptures. 
Such persons cannot believe in the word of God. 

B. God. has received infants into covenant with himself. 
When he organized the visible church in the days of Abram, 
they formed a part of its members. God required the seal 
of the covenant to be applied to them. Have men a right to 
repeal that portion of the law of the covenant which requires 
its seal to be applied to infants ? 

I. They have not. To attempt to do so would be to 
usurp the Divine prerogatives. God only can repeal his 
own laws. He and no other being can change his covenant 
or alter its seal or exclude from it any portion of that party 
which is composed of human beings.. 

B. Has God ever excluded infants from his covenant, or 
from a right to its seal % 

I. He has not. The scriptures do not so much as inti- 
mate any such thing. Though infants are frequently men- 
tioned both in the Old and New Testaments, their exclusion 
from the covenant or from a right to its seal, is not, in any 
form of words, taught in a single passage. 

B. Have men any right then to exclude them from God's 
covenant and from its seal ? 



368 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

I. No ; they have not. To attempt to do so would be 
rebellion against the high authority of heaven. 

B. Has circumcision, in New Testament times, ceased, 
by Divine authority, to be the seal of the covenant for both 
adults and infants ?. 

I. It has. It is no longer the seal of the covenant for 
any person old or young. 

B. What is now the seal of the visible covenant into 
which God once entered with his professed people ? 

I. The seal of this covenant is now christian baptism, 
and it always has been so since the institution of that ordi- 
nance. 

B. Did circumcision seal spiritual blessings to any of the 
circumcised 1 

I. It certainly did ; for circumcision was " a seal of the 
righteousness of — faith ;" and a part of the promise of this 
covenant was, " I will — be a God unto thee and to thy seed." 
This certainly includes spiritual blessings. 

B. Infants, you say, have not been, by Divine authority, 
excluded from this covenant, and that, in New Testament 
times, its seal is baptism. 

I. I do say so. The seal of the covenant is now baptism, 
and God has not deprived infants of its use. 

B. Why then do you not have your children baptized, 
since infants now have a right to that seal of the covenant ? 

I. 1 don't believe in infant baptism. 

B. Will your unbelief on this subject be a substitute for 
your duty % 

I. No ; I don't believe it will. 

B. Why then do you refuse to have your children bap- 
tized % 

I. The truth is, to be plain with you, I do not like the ob- 
ligations publicly recognized by parents in the baptism of 
their infant children. 

B. But these obligations all rest upon you as a parent. 
To neglect these duties will not diminish their magnitude or 
number. 

I. I know that. Have you any other evidence in favor 
of infant baptism 1 

B. I have, much. In the word of God, the command to 
baptize infants is positive and frequently repeated. The di- 



REVIEW OP INFANT BAPTISM. 369 

rection which Christ gives to his ministering servants, re- 
quires millions of infants to be dedicated to the Triune God 
in baptism. Indeed, every passage in the scriptures which 
mentions infants as living in New Testament times, describes 
them as being actually baptized, or as having a right to that 
ordinance. Multitudes of examples of infant baptism are 
also mentioned in the New Testament. Infants were bap- 
tized by John, — were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, — 
were baptized in families, — and they are frequently men- 
tioned as baptized church members. These and similar state- 
ments abound in the word of God. They all teach infant 
baptism in language too plain to be misunderstood by any 
person who will read the scriptures with care. 

I. The word of God is so very pointed on this subject 
that no true believer in its statements, who is untrammelled 
by prejudice, can withhold his full assent to the doctrine of 
infant baptism. 

B. Why then are you unwilling to have your children 
baptized ? 

I. I don't see any use in baptizing infants. 

B. Is that a good reason why you should neglect to obey 
the positive command of God 1 

I. No ; it is not. But there is no harm in neglecting 
to have my children baptized. 

B. Do you really believe that there is no harm in ne- 
glecting to obey the positive command of God 1 

I. No ; I do not believe that either. To neglect to obey 
the command of God, must be a sin. 

B. Do you believe that you sustain a covenant relation 
to God ? 

I. I do. 

B. How was this relation formed 1 

I. God, in the days of Abram, entered into covenant with 
his professed people. This covenant continues in full force 
in New Testament times. I became one of God's professed 
people, and by making a profession of religion, I entered 
into covenant with him. 

B. Did you leave your children behind, when, as you 
say, you entered into covenant with God % 

I. I did. I left them because they were infants. 

24 



870 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

B. Then you yourself are not in covenant with God. 

I. Why so ' l . May I not have him for my covenant God 
\lg leave my infant children to his uncovenanted mercies ? 

B, You cannot. God makes no covenant with profes- 
sing parents to the exclusion of their infant children. You 
cannot enter God's covenant and leave your children in an 
uncovenanted state. He has made no provisions for such a 
step. He has not authorized you to enter into covenant 
with him, and, at the same time, leave your children "aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the 
covenants of promise." He has made no covenant with 
man in which adults only form a party. By excluding your 
children from the covenant, you turn away from it yourself. 
You cannot have an interest in the covenant made with 
God's visible people, if in it your infant children have no 
interest. His covenant was and is made with believers and 
their children. 

I. I cannot see how baptism can do an unconscious in- 
fant any good. 

B. What good does it do an adult to be baptized ? 

I. Why ? why ? why ? indeed I never thought of that. 

B. Let me tell you then that baptism does an infant as 
much good as it does an adult. When therefore you ascer- 
tain the amount of good it does an adult to be baptized, you 
will know what good it does to baptize an infant. But if 
you should still remain ignorant on this subject, if you should 
never know so much on it as to be able to determine what 
advantage it is to an infant to be baptized ; your ignorance 
would not be a substitute for your duty, or prove that infants 
ought not to be baptized. 

I. I know all that very well. It is also undeniably cer- 
tain that the scriptures teach the doctrine of infant baptism. 

B. If then you believe the scriptures to be a revelation 
from God, and the only rule of duty, you will have your 
children baptized. 

I. Must a man do all that the scriptures require him to 
do under the dispensation during which he lives \ 

B. It is certainly his duty to do so ; and if he does not 
at least habitually obey the external commands of God, he 
acts very inconsistently, if he professes to take the scrip- 



REVIEW OF INFANT BAPTISM. 371 

tures for his only rule in all religious duties. He would 
show much more honesty and regard for veracity, if he even 
rejected the word of God as a Divinely inspired rule of ac- 
tion for man while on earth, than to profess and act as you 
do. 

I. Well, I don't believe in those parts of the bible which 
teach infant baptism. I only believe in the inspiration of 
the New Testament That is enough for a christian. 

B. A true christian believes in the inspiration of the Old 
Testament as well as in that of the New. But the New 
Testament teaches the doctrine of infant baptism as pointed- 
ly as the Old does; perhaps more so. It also teaches that the 
Old Testament is inspired. Those therefore who reject the 
inspiration of the Old Testament cannot believe that the New 
teaches truth, much less that it is Divinely inspired. 

I. But I can so explain every passage in the New Tes- 
tament as to make it consistent with the rejection of infant 
baptism. 

B. That would prove that you are able to pervert the 
word of God. But such a course would not prove that in- 
fant baptism is not taught in the scriptures. Besides, you 
would then have your own explanations or perversions of 
scripture for your guide, instead of God's own truth. 

I. Do you suppose ? 

B. It is no matter what I or you or any other person may 
suppose. We have nothing to do with suppositions. The 
word of God is the only rule for christians in all religious 
duties. This has nothing to do with men's suppositions. It 
contains God's directions. It requires infants to be bapti- 
zed. 

I. . Well, if the scriptures, in a thousand passages, taught 
infant baptism, I would not believe it to be true. 

B. It is manifest then that you have no real love for 
God's word. It is also quite evident that you have no more 
respect for it than for any human production. Your belief 
in Divine revelation, if it can be called belief, has no heart 
in it. You follow your own fancies or those of other men, 
and then pervert the word of God in order to obtain its ap- 
parent countenance for your wild notions. As you value 
your eternal interest, I entreat you to seek the pardoning 



372 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

mercy of God for your sin in neglectiug to have your chil- 
dren baptized. The Lord is yet waiting to be gracious. Do 
not any longer, I beseech you, trifle with his long-suffering 
patience. 

I. You may say what you please. But I won't have my 
children baptized. If God does teach it in his word, I would 
rather not attend to it and that is reason enough for me. 

B. I must now leave you. I pray the Lord to give you 
grace in the heart which may lead you to obey his holy 
commands in your life. These you profess to take for your 
only rule of duty. But yours is manifestly mere profession. 
You cannot now even plead ignorance on this subject. God's 
word is too plain to allow any palliation for your sin on that 
account. Ecclesiastical history, during the days of the apos- 
tles, and from that time till the present moment, shows that 
the church of God has always baptized infants. Whoever 
therefore is ignorant on this subject, must be wilfully so. 
May the Lord give you grace to enable you to attend to the 
important, the interesting duty of infant baptism. 

I. But stop a moment. Infants do not know what is 
done for them when they are baptized. 

B. God knew this when he received them into covenant 
with himself, — when he directed its seal to be applied to 
them, — when he commanded his servants to baptize them. 
When infants were circumcised, they had no knowledge of 
the nature of that " seal of the righteousness of- — faith." 
But this their want of knowledge, did not prevent that seal 
from confirming to them the promise of the covenant. Nor 
can the ignorance of infants in New Testament times, ren- 
der their baptism more or less valid. It is not the knowledge 
or ignorance of the infant subject of baptism, which entitles 
him to that ordinance. Nothing can do this but Divine au- 
thority. When this authority requires infants to be bapti- 
zed, then they not only may, but must be baptized. If they 
are not dedicated to God in this ordinance, then those who 
neglect to have it administered to them refuse to comply 
with the Divine commands on this subject. Such persons 
continue to live in habitual rebellion against God. Besides, 
the ignorance of your children will not be a good substitute 
for your duty. God commands you and all other parents to 



STANZAS ON BAPTISM. 373 

believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He requires you also to 
dedicate your infant children to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. 
It is your duty to obey this and every other command of 
God. For you to say to him in relation to this Divine com- 
mand ; ' Lord my children are ignorant, they do not know 
what is done for those who are baptized,' would not be 
prompt and filial obedience. This would, in fact, be an at- 
tempt to teach Omniscience. It would be saying in effect; 
1 Lord, thou dost command me to dedicate my infant chil- 
dren to thee in baptism, but they do not understand the na- 
ture of that holy ordinance, therefore I will not obey thee 
in this requirement. In my judgment thou art wrong in 
this matter. I will, for the sake of promoting thy glory, 
neglect to obey, nay, I will oppose this thy positive com- 
mand.' Such is the language of your actions. God, when 
he commanded infants to receive the seal of the covenant — 
to be baptieed — knew certainly what was and would be the 
amount of their knowledge. And with this his perfect pre- 
science on this subject, he directed them to be baptized. This 
you would not have done, would you ? 

I. Indeed Iwould not. In that you are right. 

B. You therefore differ from God. I prefer his wisdom 
to yours. May the Lord enlighten your understanding to 
perceive his mercy and grace in requiring parents to dedi- 
cate their infant children to God in baptism. My labors 
with you are now ended. The blessing of God and that 
only, can render them useful to your soul. Adieu. Re- 
member, the Divine command requires you to dedicate your 
children to God in baptism. 

STANZAS ON BAPTISM. 

For immersion, in the Scriptures, 
Not a word of proof is found(a); 

But a nation, it is certain, 

Were baptized upon dry ground(S), 

God informs us, that to sprinkle, 

Is a mode to be baptized(c); 
In no other does he teach us, 

That his grace is symbolized(d). 

' faJSee B. ii, P. i. f*;See B. iii, P. i, Ch. 2, § 5. feJSee B. iii. (d)B. iii, P. i, 
Ch» 1, $ 6. 



374 BIBLE BAPTISM. [b. IV, P. V. 

Infants of believing parents, 

Are in covenant with theLord(a); 

To its seal they're hence entitled 
In accordance with his word(J). 

Infants by Divine direction, 

Must with water be baptized ; 
Christ commands it as a duty, 

Not by men to be despised(c). 

His command is plain and pointed ; 

To obey the gracious voice 
Of the infant's loving Saviour, 

Is a duty, not mere choice. 

All should listen to his teaching, 

As recorded in his word ; 
Then would infants be by sprinkling, 

Dedicated to the Lord(rf). 

Reader, when an immerser attacks you on his favorite 
topic, just ask him, (1.) To prove by some one passage of 
scripture that immersion is a mode of baptism ; (2.) request 
him to point to at least one verse in any portion of Divine 
revelation, which will prove, either by precept or example, 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism ; (3.) let him 
know that God once received infants into an " everlasting 
covenant" with himself, and required its " token," the "seal 
of the righteousness of faith,"* to be applied to them ; 
(4.) ask him to prove, from any part of God's word, that 
they have ever been, by Divine authority, excluded from 
this " everlasting covenant," or from the use of its seal ; and 
(5.) ask him to show from scripture that this covenant has 
ever been disannulled. By doing this, you will easily 
perceive that immersers have nothing but assertions and 
questions upon which to erect their whole windy super- 
structure. 

(a)SeeT. ii, Ch. 4, § 4. (b)P. iii, Ch.2, § 1. (c) See P. iii, Ch. 2, <$ 5. (d)See B 
iii ; B. iv, P. iii. *Gen. 17: 7. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 19, Rom. 4: 11. 



CONCLUSION. 375 

CONCLUSION. 

This work is now brought to a close. In it the readers 
attention has been directed to the important subject of bap- 
tism in all its various parts. It aims at directing the mind to 
the holy scriptures as the only rule in all religious duties. 
It notices baptism with water ; baptism unto Moses ; divers 
baptisms ; John's baptism ; the baptism administered to Christ 
and that which he and his disciples administered before his 
resurrection. Moreover it treats of christian baptism and 
of baptism for the dead. This work directs the mind to bap- 
tism without water, and to that administered without Divine 
authority. It mentions the modes of baptism. It also states 
the exact point to be examined when the mode of baptism is 
to be discussed. It shows that there is no evidence in the 
word of God in favor of immersion as being the only mode 
or even as being a mode of baptism. It teaches that immer- 
sion as the only mode of baptism is improbable, — is impossi- 
ble. It mentions the fact that no Lexicons, no Dictionaries, 
no Greek writers of any description, teach that immersion 
is the only mode of baptism. It also shows that all these 
use (/3a*r;^6j) the Greek word for baptize in a great variety 
of senses. It teaches that the Greek church does not hold 
that immersion is the only mode of baptism. It mentions 
the reasons which usually induce persons to be immersed, — 
also the origin and evils of immersion. Moreover, that 
sprinkling is a mode of baptism taught by the sacred writers 
and by primitive christians, is shown from the language 
which they use and from other evidence. This work alsc 
shows that true believers, — professed believers, — females, — 
and infants are proper subjects of baptism. It directs the 
mind to a number of commands requiring adults and infants 
to be baptized, and mentions many examples of the baptism 
of all these classes of persons ; but it takes special notice of 
the examples of infants baptized. It shows that the whole 
force of the Greek language is used by the holy Spirit to 
prove infant baptism. It also directs the mind to the fact that 
every passage of scripture which mentions infants as living 
in New Testament times, inculcates infant baptism in some 
form of words. Besides, it notices the fact that infant bap- 
tism has been practiced by the church of Christ during, and 



376 BIBLE BAPTISM. [fi. IV, P. V. 

ever since the days of the apostles. In addition to this, it 
mentions what infants ought to be, and what may be bapti- 
zed. It also teaches the advantages of infant baptism, — and 
the evils of neglecting or rejecting that holy ordinance. 

From all this, it appears perfectly manifest that the sa- 
cred writers, the primitive christians, — and millions of the 
wise and good in every age since the death of Christ, have 
believed in, taught and practiced the baptism of infants by 
sprinkling. This we know, because they themselves tell us 
so. They do this in almost every form of expression. They 
very frequently, in the languages used by them, clearly and 
definitely express the application of this seal of the covenant 
to infants in this mode. Such evidence no candid enquirer 
after truth, can examine and resist. 

May the Lord make his own truth on this subject and on 
every other, "quick and powerful and sharper than any 
two-edged sword. 7 '* Then it will carry entire conviction to 
the understanding, — to the heart, — to the conscience of the 
reader. But without the special operations of the holy Spi- 
rit, the labor of writing and that of reading this book, will 
be in vain. May the God of all consolation therefore grant 
his special grace in rich abundance to the writer and to the 
reader for the great Redeemer's sake. Amen. 

*Heb, 4. 12. 



INDEX. 

Aaron and the other Levites sprinkled 

Abrahamic covenant, 

Adult baptism, not opposed to that of infants, 

Advantages of infant baptism, 

Allusion, none to immersion in scripture, 

Anabaptists, 

Apocrypha on immersion, 

on sprinkling, 
Apostles, their baptism confined to the Jews, 

theirs not christian baptism, 

were baptized with the spirit, 
Authorhy, human, not the rule of duty, 

Baptism, administered to Christ, 

christian, administered, in what name, 

to Gentiles and Jews, 

who may administer, 

is a significant ordinance, 

is to continue to the end of time, 

denotes the work of the spirit, 

is a sacrament, 

is a seal, 

is not regeneration, 

Jesus Christ did not receive, 

is not to be repeated, 

N. Testam't circumcision (par. 12,) 
of families mentioned, 
of infants commanded, 

taught by our Saviour, 

divine authority for, 

examples of, 
stanzas on, 

administered to 3000 in one day, 
which is a seal, not immersion, 



Section. 


Page. 


1 


208 


1 


276 


6 


304 


1-10 


347 


1-5 


98 


3 


180 


1 


148 


1 


216 


4 


41 


7 


42 


5 


68 


1 


215 


4 


32 


6 


50 


7 


50 


5 


48 


9 


51 


8 


51 


9 


52 


10 


53 


11 


54 


16 


58 


4 


32 


17 


60 


») l 


281 


6 


290 


5 


287 


2 


270 


1-7 


269 


1-6 


316 




373 


7 


127 


10 


129 



378 



Baptism with the Holy Ghost, not immersion, 

with fire, not immersion, 

with suffering, not immersion, 

without divine authority, 

self, of the Jews, 

of proselytes, 

by females, 

by laymen, 

modes of 

proper subjects of, 

what necessary in a subject of, 

what not necessary in a subject of, 

true believers may receive, 

professed believers may receive, 

the spiritually baptized may receive, 

the penitent may receive, 

females may receive, 

infants may receive, 

can receive what is signified by, 

of infants taught by John, 
Paul, 
the prophets, 

of infants in the Red Sea, 

christian, mentioned in scripture, 

the sign of, and what is signified in, 

with water, in every passage where mention- 
ed, proves sprinkling to be a mode of, 

by sprinkling, commanded, 

can become universal, 

christian, what is signified by, is sprinkled 

by sprinkling is a seal, 

sprinkling the only mode of, expressly men- 
tioned in scripture, 

of Christ was by sprinkling, 

of the Eunuch by sprinkling, 

of Paul by sprinkling, 

John administered his, by sprinkling, 

of the Israelites was by sprinkling, 

every example of, teaches sprinkling to be a 
mode, 



Section. 


Page. 


11 


130 


12 


131 


13 


131 


1-3 


72 


1 


72 


3 


73 


2 


75 


1 


74 


1-4 


76 


1-3 


253 


4 


257 


1-3 


253 


1 


259 


4 


261 


2 


260 


3 


261 


5 


262 


1-6 


264 


3 


265 


4 


271 


3 


270 


6 


273 


5 


272 


1 


109 


6 


202 


n- 
13 


207 


12 


206 


9 


204 


6 


201 


8 


203 


n- 
3 


195 


1 


207 


2 


209 


3 


210 


4 


210 


5 


211 



6 213 



379 



Baptism, the scriptural mode of, by sprinkling, 


Section. 

7 


Page. 

214 


if but one mode of, that is sprinkling, 


8 


214 


human authority for, by sprinkling, 


1-4 


215 


Lexicons inculcate sprinkling as a mode of, 


2-4 


215 


by sprinkling taught in the Apocrypha, 


1 


216 


buried with Christ by, into death, 


3 


100 


with fire, 


1-4 


69 


with the Holy Ghost, 


1 


66 


the work of Christ, 


3 


68 


with sufferings, taught, 


1 


70 


Christ received, 


2 


71 


James and John received, 


3 


71 


martyrs received, 


4 


71 


all true christians receive, 


5 


71 


with water taught, 


1 


9 


is to continue, 


1-4 


10 


for the dead, 


3 


64 


John's, from heaven, 


4 


20 


intended for the Jews, 


9 


22 


peculiar to himself, 


10 


22 


not administered in the name of the Tri 






nity, 


11 


23 


not the seal of the covenant, 


13 


24 


not christian baptism, 


18 


29 


Christ's, not for an example, 9, 10 


36 


Baptisms, divers, 


1 


14 


Baptist, John the, lived in 0. T. times, 


2 


17 


his authority was divine, 


4 


19 


commissioned by the Father, 


5 


20 


had no successors, 


6 


20 


his commission special, 


8 


21 


intended for the Jews only, 


9 


22 


his baptism peculiar to himself, 


10 


22 


did not baptize in the name of the Tri- 






nity, 


11 


23 


his disciples re-baptized, 


12 


23 


his baptism not a covenant seal, 


13 


24 


not a New Testament minister, 


17 


28 


his not christian baptism, 


18 


29 


Baptize, meaning of, not immerse, 


8 


94 



380 



Baptize, immerse not its scriptural meaning, 
its true meaning in scripture, 
the meaning of (/3atf<rw) its root, 
its signification in the Septuagint, 
its signification in Greek Lexicons, 
in Latin Dictionaries, 
in French and German Dictionaries, 
in Dutch and other Gothic languages, 
in English Dictionaries, 
its meaning in Greek writers, 

in Homer, (note b,) 
history of the word, (note c,) 
Baptized, Christ was, as a priest, 
not as a substitute, 
not to set an example, 
any infant can be, 
some infants have a right to be, 
believe and be, 
BavrKfiioig (Old Testament washings) 

this word signifies sprinkle, 
Batf-ri^w, its meaning in scripture, 

does not in scripture denote immerse, 
cannot signify immerse, 
in scripture it signifies sprinkle, 
its meanings in Lexicons, 
in the Septuagint, 
in Greek writers, 
in the Apocrypha, 
as given by immersers, 
Ba-r-rw, signifies to sprinkle, 

its meaning in the Septuagint, 
in Greek Lexicons, 
in Greek writers, 
Battle of the frogs and mice (note b,) 
Believers, true, to be baptized, 
professed, to be baptized, 

B£S<pO£, jS^flpuXXlOV, 

Buried, with Christ by baptism, 

into death, 
Bury, does not allude to immerse, 



Section. 


Page. 


7,8 


85 


2 


192 


4 


198 


5 


200 


1 


141 


2 


144 


s, 3 


144 


;es, 4 


144 


5 


145 


4 


151 


2 


150 


2 


194 


6 


33 


8 


36 


9 


36 


3 


343 


1 


343 


1 


259 


1 


14 


3 


195 


2 


192 


8 


85 


5-16 


125 


2 


192 


1 


141 


3-5 


195 


1-4 


148 


1 


216 


4 


155 


4,5 


198 


7 


146 


1 


143 


4 


151 


2 


150 


1 


259 


4 


261 


7 


307 


3 


100 


8 


129 


2 


99 



INDEX. 381 

Section. Page. 

Ceremonial washings, mode of performing, 7 202 
Church, visible, attempts to organize a, with true 

believers only, absurd, 13 245 

is God's visible kingdom on earth, 9 243 

Church, visible, its members, 8 238 

infants always members of, 8 239 

its members in the Abrahamic covenant, 18 251 

its privileges extended in N. T. times, 19 251 

its members to be baptized, 1 269 

in covenant with God, 3 269 

organized in the days of Abram, 2 269 

its covenant confirmed, 4 236 

is one, 5 236 
its members have a right to the seal of the 

covenant whatever that is, 6 237 
Church, invisible, its members are adults and in- 
fants, 4 231 
Christ's, not christian baptism, 4 32 
Christ, by baptism consecrated to the priestly office, 6 33 
baptized, not as a substitute, 8 36 
not as an example, 9 36 
his example, what it is, 10 36 
baptized, why he was, 9 36 
not immersed, 6 34 
was sprinkled, 1 207 
Christians, baptized with sufferings, 5 71 
Chrysostom, on baptism, (paragraph 13,) 1 328 
Circumcision, the O. T. seal of the covenant, 10 244 
confirmed spiritual blessings, (paragraphs 4, 7,) 1 277 
New Testament, (paragraph 12,) 1 281 
Circumcised, all the, did not enter Canaan, 10 314 
Claims of the exclusives, 4 163 
Clean water, to be sprinkled, 1 189 
Commentators, Pedobaptist, 4 219 
Commission to baptize from Christ, 5 287 
Confirmation, rite of (note &,) 4 360 
Convert to Judaism and Christianity contrasted, 10 316 
Councils on baptism, 3 224 
Covenant, all the baptized bound in, 8 352 
blessings, of the, 3-9 349 



382 



Covenant, parents bound in, 

promises of the, 
Covered, to be, with any material, is not to be im 

mersed, 
Cross, immersion not a christian, 
Cyprian on baptism, (paragraph 9.) 

Daupian, 

Death by immersion, 

Denominations reject immersion, 

adopt sprinkling, 
Dialogue on immersion, 

on infant baptism, 

on sprinkling, 
Dictionaries on baptism, 

English, 

on sprinkling, 

French and German, 

Dutch, 
Difference between O. and N. Testament church, 

(paragraph 15,) 
Dip, Greek word ((Wrw) for, not used for baptize. 
Divers baptisms, 

Divisions, who guilty of the sin of, 
Dobe, the Danish word for baptize, 
Doctrine of baptisms, 
Dopa, the Swedish word for baptize, 
Doopen, the Dutch word for baptize, 
Drowned, Christ was not, (paragraph 8,) 
Dry land, immersion on, impossible, 

Israelites, baptized on, 
Dutch, Danish, Saxon, Swedish, Meso-Gothic, the 

words for baptize in the, 
Efjo/3a#<n£oj or S|a/3atf<rw not used for baptize, 
they denote immerse, 
see also pp. 
Enon, described, (paragraph 2,) 

why John baptized in, 
Engravings do not teach immersion, 
do teach sprinkling, 



Section. 


Page. 


6 


350 


3,9 


349 


l- 
6 


108 


5 


164 


1 


327 


4 


145 


4 


184 


2 


154 


2 


222 




186 




366 




226 


2-5 


144 


5 


145 


4 


216 


3 


144 


4 


144 


5 

1 


284 


H 2 


149 


2 


14 


16 


243 


4 


145 


1 


62 


4 


145 


4 


144 


3 


104 


4 


123 


4 


124 


4 


144 


6,7 


83 


3 


86 


175- 


-177 


1 


113 


2 


139 


2 


161 


5 


221 



INDEX. 383 

Section. Page. 

Errorists most adopt immersion, (paragraph 4,) 6 119 

Evidence for the claims of immersion, no, 4, 5 170 

scriptural, for infant baptism, 2-7 270 

from modern writers on infant baptism, 10 276 

from divine command for infant baptism, 5 287 

from human authority, 1-4 324 

from examples of infant baptism, 1-6 316 

from the whole force of the Greek language, 7 307 

for infant baptism summed up, 7 308 

Evils of neglecting infant baptism, 1-4 357 

rejecting infant baptism, 1-6 360 

of immersion, 1-4 182 

Eunuch, not immersed, (paragraph 5,) 1 114 

was baptized by sprinkling, 2 209 

Examples of infants baptized in the cloud and in 

the sea, 1 316 

by John, 2 317 

by the command of Christ, 3 318 

in families, 4 319 

mentioned by Paul, 5 319 

mentioned by John, 5 320 

summed up, 6 322 

Facts show immersion to be improbable, 6 118 

Faith, true, not indispensable to water baptism, 1 256 

Families, baptized, 6 290 

the word (owog) for house or family includes 

infant children, * 6 293 

Females, to be baptized, 5 262 

Font, baptismal, (note b,) 2 144 

the marble, at Syracuse, 3 162 

Funeral, ancient, denoted by (daieru) the word for 

bury, 2 99 
German Dictionaries on baptism, 3 144 
Gothic languages on baptize, 4 144 
Greek church on immersion, 1 154 
writers on baptism, 2-4 149 
Greeks, their use of (omg) the word for house, 6 297 
Gregory Nazianzen on infant baptism, (para- 
graph 11,) 1 328 



384 INDEX. 

Section. Page. 

Hebrew Lexicons on (^to) l ^ e worc * ^ or (fi a * TU ) 
the root from which (/3cwr<n£w) that for 
baptize is derived, 

Hindoostan, christians of St. Thomas, in, 

History of the word baptize, (note c,) 

ancient ecclesiastical, on infant baptism, 

Homer on (Qaier^u) baptize, (note b,) 

House, (oixos) denoting family, signifies infants, 

Households baptized, 

Ignorance, evils of, in religious teachers, 
Ignorant preachers, immersers often are, (para- 
graph 3,) 
Immerse, the word baptize does not mean, 

see also, 
Immersed, who were in Noah's time, (paragraph 6,) 

saved from being, 
Immersers avoid giving proof for immersion, 
mistake assertion for proof, 

the point to be proved, 
have altered the bible, (note a, No. 7,) 
Immersion, evils of, as the only mode of baptism, 
as baptism, when first taught, 
as the only mode of baptism, when first taught, 
in the Greek church, 
not required in scripture, 
this word not used in the English bible, 
not used in the original for baptize, 
no covenant for, in the original, 
no example of, in the original, 
no command for, or example of, in the Eng- 
lish bible, 
not a scriptural meaning of baptize, 
cannot be inferred from (am'o) from, 
from (sig) into, 
from (sx) out of, 
from (sv) in or with, 
from into, 
from out of, 
from the word baptize, 



7 


146 


2 


338 


2 


194 


, 1 


325 


2 


150 


6 


293 


6 


290 


10 


97 


6 


119 


8 


94 


7-8 


85 


> 4 


106 


4 


106 


4 


173 


1 


173 


1-4 


173 


9 


96 


1-4 


182 


1-7 


178 


3 


179 


2 


179 


1-4 


82 


5 


83 


3 


86 


6 


83 


3 


86 


6 


83 


7,8 


85 


7 


93 


4 


90 


5 


91 


6 


92 


2 


88 


3 


89 


8 


94 



INDEX. 385 

Section. Page. 

Immersion cannot be inferred from transferring 
the word baptize into English, 
learning, cannot infer, from the scriptures, 
transferred from the Latin, (note a,) 
the act of, eight- fold, 
the point to be proved, 

has two parts, 
resembles no mode of burying, (par. 4,) 
does not resemble the death, burial, resurrec- 
tion or departure of Christ from the tomb, 
cannot be a sign of what baptism denotes, 
not the only mode of baptism, 
not taught in scripture, 
if but one mode of baptism, cannot be, 
as the only mode of baptism, not probable, 
not possible, 
may destroy life, 

while a person is standing, impossible, 
cannot take place by applying water to the 

person immersed, 
on dry ground, impossible, 
in small vessels, impossible, 
of 5,000 each day for 500 days, impossible, 
of 3,000 by 12 men in 5 hours, impossible, 
into death on the cross, impossible, 
cannot prefigure Noah's preservation, 
be a seal, 

be baptism with the Holy Ghost, 
with fire, 
with sufferings, 
is indecent, 

unfits the mind for devotion, 
cannot be the O. T. mode of washing, 
cannot be a sign of the work of the Spirit, 

symbolize the death of Christ, 
persons not wet in, 
semi-self, is that of most immersers, 
no evidence for, as the only mode of baptism, 
did not originate with the apostles, 

with John the Baptist, 
25 



9 


95 


10 


97 


9 


96 


4 


78 


3 


81 


4 


81 


3 


101 


), 6 


166 


6 


165 


1-6 


109 


3 


110 


5 


111 


1-8 


113 


1-16 


121 


1 


121 


2 


122 


le 




3 


123 


4 


123 


5 


125 


6 


126 


7 


127 


8 


129 


9 


129 


10 


129 


11 


130 


12 


131 


13 


131 


14 


132 


15 


132 


16 


133 


6 


165 


6 


166 


7 


159 


6 


158 


l, 1-5 


109 


1 


175 


2 


175 



386 INDEX. 

Section. Page. 

Immersion did not originate with the Jews, 3 176 

with Christ, 4 176 

before the apostles, 5 176 

with the Greek Fathers, 6 177 

as a mode of baptism, originated in the dark 

ages, 1 178 

in the Greek church, 2 179 
as the only mode of baptism originated among 

the Anabaptists, 3 179 
originated in America with Mr. Hollyman, 4 181 
Infant baptism indirectly taught in scripture, 10 310 
intimated in scripture, 8 309 
a commanded duty, 5 287 
taught by our Saviour, 2 270 
by Paul, 3 270 
by John, 4 271 
by prophets, 6 273 
by every passage which mentions in- 
fants in New Testament times, 7 273 
by the whole force of the Gr. language, 7 307 
by the Abrahamic covenant, 1 276 
by the covenant of gracfl, 2 285 
by families being baptized, 6 290 
some of the evidence for, summed up, 7 308 
examples of, in the cloud and in the sea, 1 316 
by John the Baptist, 2 317 
in families, 4 319 
other examples of. 3, 5 318 
summed up, 6 322 
human authority for, 1-4 324 
early christians in favor of, 1 324 
taught by the Greek and Latin churches, 2 330 
later writers on, 4 333 
Pedobaptist writers on, 1 335 
councils, synods and assemblies on, 2 336 
denominations on, 1 337 
injury done to infants by neglecting, 5 364 
Infants members of the visible church, (par. 2,) 8 240 
proper subjects of baptism, 1-3 264 
in covenant with God, 4 266 



INDEX. 387 

Section. Page. 

Infants are sinful creatures, 2 264 

may receive what baptism signifies, 3 265 

their baptism taught, 2-7 270 

required, 1-6 276 

baptized, 3 331 

commanded to be baptized, 5 287 
never excluded from the covenant or from the 

use of its seal, (par. 13,) 1 282 

in the new covenant, to be baptized, 2 285 

prepared for Heaven, to be baptized, 3 286 

baptized by John, 4 287 

may be taught, 5 289 

included in (oixoj) house, 6 293 

O. T. not more favorable to, than N. (par. 6,) 10 313 

Inscriptions, commemorative, on infant baptism, 3 331 

Israelites, the, baptized in the cloud and in the sea, 1 12 

not immersed, 4 123 

were sprinkled, 5 211 

James and John were baptized with sufferings, 3 71 

Jailer, circumstances of, 6 305 

not immersed, (par. 6,) 1 115 

his house baptized, (par. 2,) 6 291 

Jewish baptism unauthorized, 1_3 72 

use of (oixoj) house, 6 301 

John sprinkled, 4 210 

Justin Martyr, on infant baptism, (par. 5,) 1 325 

on circumcision, (par. 12,) 1 282 

Kingdom of God, infants members of, 8 309 

to come, when Christ preached, (par. 3,) 2 18 

when John preached, (par. 2,) 2 18 

after John's death, (par. 5,) 2 19 

Know, those baptized in infancy, that they were, 4 345 

Language, of immersers admits sprinkling to be 

a mode of baptism, 4 155 

Latin Dictionaries, on baptize, 2 144 

Laymen, not authorized to baptize, 1 74 

Law and the prophets, until John, 14 25 

Learning, 10 97 

Lexicons, Greek, on (jScMrr»£w) baptize, 1 141 



388 . INDEX. 

Liars, habitual, not christians, 

Liberty, not impaired by infant baptism, 

Life, not to be endangered by baptism, 

Little children, an indefinite number baptized, 

Locusts, not to hurt the sealed, 

Lydia, her (oixos) family baptized, 

circumstances of, 
Linguists, 47 of the best on (/3atf<n£w) baptize, 

(par. 5,) 
Martyrs, council of, on infant baptism, (par. 1,) 
Members, church, to be baptized, 
Meso-Gothic language, on baptism, 
Ministers bound in covenant to teach, &c. baptized 

children, 
Mode of ceremonial washings, 
Modes of baptism, 
Multitudes baptized by John, 
Nations baptized by sprinkling, 
Noah in the ark, cannot teach immersion, 
New dispensation did not commence with John, 
Obedience required in baptism, 

to God required in christian baptism, 1! 

Old Testament washings, not by immersion, 
Ojxja, o»xo£, household, house, 
One baptism, mode not mentioned in, 
if only one, that is by sprinkling, 
Opinion of some immersers, 

on baptize, 
of immersers, as to the meaning of (f3airri£u 
the word for baptize, 
Opposition to infant baptism a sin, 
Optatus, on infant baptism, (paragraph 12,) 
Order, proper, requires infant baptism, (par. 4,) 
Ordinance, baptism an instituted, 
Origen, on infant baptism, (par. 8,) 
Originated, when immersion did, in America, 
in Europe, 
in the Greek church, 
as the only mode of baptism, 



Section. 

3 


Page. 

224 


10 


354 


1 


121 


5 


319 


2 


358 


6 


290 


6 


302 


6 


120 


3 


224 


1 


269 


4 


145 


2d 

7 


351 


7 


202 


1-4 


76 


6 


126 


1 


191 


9 


129 


15 


25 


4 


13 


2, 13 


55 


16 


133 


6 


293 


2 


63 


8 


214 


3,4 


155 


5 


157 




4 


155 


6 


365 


1 


328 


10 


312 


2 


47 


1 


326 


4 


181 


1 


178 


2 


179 


i, 3 


179 



389 



Overdress, sometimes used by immersers, (note a,) 

IIai<5jov, Trai^, little child, child, 
Ilavojxj, the whole house, 

Palestine, immersion not probable in, (par. 4,) 
Parental affection indicates infant baptism, 
Parents bound in covenant to train up their bap- 
tized children in the way they should go, 
Parties in the covenant made with the visible 

church, 
Paul, baptized by sprinkling, 
Pedobaptist writers on immersion, 

infant baptism, 
Point, the, what it is, 
Proselytes, baptism of, by the Jews, 
Questions do not prove immersion, 

of immersers answered, 
Resurrection not symbolized by immersion, 
Roger Williams immersed in Rhode Island, 
Sacrament, baptism a, 
Seal, baptism a, 

to be applied to the forehead, 

sprinkling a baptismal, 

may be changed (par. 9,) 
Seals of the covenant, church members have a 
right to, 

what they are and were, (par. 10, 11,) 
Simon the sorcerer was baptized, 
Sin of division, who guilty of, 
Sprinkle clear water, 

many nations, he shall, 
Sprinkling as a mode of baptism taught in scripture, 

can become universal, 

the only mode expressly mentioned in scripture, 3 

the mode, in spiritual baptism, 

a baptismal seal, 

to be applied to the forehead, 

John's mode of baptism, 

the mode of performing ceremonial washings 

commanded in scripture, 



:tion. 


Page. 


7 


160 


7 


307 


6 


305 


1 


114 


9 


309 


6 


350 


8 


238 


3 


210 


3 


150 


1 


335 


3 


81 


3 


73 


2 


137 


1 


139 


8 


166 


4 


181 


10 


53 


11 


54 


8 


203 


8 


403 


1 


280 


6 


237 


1 


280 


1 


255 


16 


248 


1 


189 


1 


191 


1 


189 


9 


204 


, 3 


195 


6 


201 


8 


203 


8 


203 


4 


210 


7 


202 


12 


206 



390 INDEX. 

Section. Page. 

Sprinkling taught, when baptism with water is 
required, 
Christ was baptized by, 
Israel was baptized by, 
the Eunuch was baptized by, 
if but one mode of baptism that is by, 
Paul was baptized by, 
proved by every example of baptism, 
scriptural evidence for, full, 
a meaning of the word (/Satf^w) for baptize, 
a mode of baptism, taught by Greek Lexicons, 2 
by Hebrew Lexicons, 
by other Lexicons and Dictionaries, 
is the scriptural meaning of the word (/3a#<r»- 

£w) for baptize, 
taught in the Hebrew Bible, 
in the Septuagint, 
in the New Testament, (par. 8,) 
in the Apocrypha, 
by the Greek fathers, 
by other Greek writers, 
by Latin fathers, 
by Pedobaptists, 
by ancient engravings, 
by christians generally, 
by councils, synods and assemblies, 
by many large denominations, 
Substitute for christian baptism, 
Swedish word for baptize, its meaning, 
Synod of Cambridge on baptism, 

Dort or Dordrecht on baptism, 
Tables baptized, not immersed, 
Taufen, the German word for baptize, 
Tsxviov, rexvov, <rsxvow, 
Tertullian on infant baptism, (par. 7,) 
Translators of the scriptures, (par. 5,) 
Unity of the Old and New Testament church, 
Valid baptism, what necessary to, 

what not necessary to, 



13 


207 


1 


207 


5 


211 


2 


209 


8 


214 


3 


210 


6 


213 


7 


214 


1 


141 


, 2 


215 


3 


216 


1 


216 


2 


192 


3 


196 


4 


198 


2 


193 


1 


216 


2 


217 


1 


141 


3 


218 


4 


219 


5 


221 


1 


222 


3 


224 


2 


222 


8 


43 


4 


145 


3 


224 


3 


224 


8 


121 


3 


144 


7 


307 


1 


326 


6 


120 


1 


283 


4 


257 


1 


254 



391 



Various kinds of immersion, 
Washing not immersion, 

once preceded baptism, 
Water, the emblem to be used in baptism, 
Westminster assembly on baptism, (par. 6,) 
What is done in immersion, 
Young children in the jailer's family, 

in Lydia's family, 
Zosimus, a present from, 



sction. 

4 


Page. 

77 


5 


106 


1 


160 


4 


48 


3 


224 


4 


78 


6 


304 


6 


302 


3 


162 



ERRATA. 

A very few typographical errors have escaped the notice of the printers, 
will please to correct the following: 
Page 11, § 2, line 10, for " be baptized," read " baptize." 
Page 30, § 1, line 4, for " righteous," read " righteousness." 
Page 113, § 1, line 5, for " these," read " there." 
Page 148, § 1, line 4, for urfaTOff read ti6aT0£. 
Page 219, § 3, last line, for " made," read " mode." 
Page 324, § 1, (note) for "cintaucheu," read " eintauchen." 
Page 332, § 3, par. 5, for " Maureutius," read " Maurentius." 
Perhaps a few other errors may be found in the book. 



